51 Academics Write to President Murmu Over Supreme Court Ban on NCERT Textbook, Punishment of Educators
A coalition of 51 scholars from prestigious institutions including IITs and IIMs has reached out to President Droupadi Murmu, urging her to intervene in a Supreme Court ruling that has banned a Class 8 NCERT textbook and imposed punitive measures on its authors. The letter, sent on April 7, 2026, highlights concerns over the implications of the court’s decision for education in India.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy originated from the NCERT textbook titled Exploring Society: India and Beyond, which was published on February 24, 2026. This textbook was part of a broader reform initiative under the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCF-SE) 2023.
One chapter in the textbook, “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society,” included a section discussing the challenges faced by the judicial system in India, including issues like the backlog of cases and corruption. The chapter drew the attention of senior advocates shortly after its release, leading to a Supreme Court bench deeming it “offending” and “prima facie intended towards maligning the Indian Judiciary.”
Supreme Court Orders
On February 26, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a suo motu order banning the textbook and initiated show-cause notices for criminal contempt against the Director of NCERT and the Secretary for School Education and Literacy. Following apologies from both officials, the court ordered on March 11, 2026, that all government bodies disassociate from three members of the textbook’s development team: Michel Danino, Alok Prasanna Kumar, and Suparna Diwakar.
Concerns Raised by Academics
The letter from the academics outlines five main objections to the Supreme Court’s actions:
Legal Overreach
The signatories argue that banning a book is a legal matter that should be enacted through legislation, not judicial fiat. They assert that the Supreme Court’s decision constitutes an overreach of its constitutional powers.
Violation of Due Process
The academics contend that the three individuals named in the affidavit were punished without an opportunity to defend themselves, violating principles of natural justice. They argue that the punitive measures infringe upon the fundamental rights to employment and livelihood guaranteed by the Constitution.
Proportionality
The letter states that banning the entire textbook due to a problematic subsection is disproportionate and causes unnecessary hardship to students. They suggest allowing the remaining chapters to be published while reviewing the contested section.
Pedagogical Concerns
The academics argue that the Supreme Court’s intervention in educational content intrudes upon the expertise of educationists. They emphasize that the new textbooks were designed to promote critical thinking in line with the NEP 2020.
Threat to Academic Freedom
The letter warns that the Supreme Court’s actions have created an atmosphere of intimidation that could deter educators from engaging in constructive criticism, which is essential for a healthy democracy.
Requests to the President
The academics made four specific requests to President Murmu:
- Request the Supreme Court to withdraw the ban on the textbook and allow its online publication without the controversial chapter.
- Request the Supreme Court to lift the professional disqualification imposed on the three educators.
- Expand the expert committee reviewing the contested chapter to include experienced educationists, ensuring alignment with NEP 2020.
- Ensure that curriculum development committees under NEP 2020 are fully operational.
Implications for Indian Education
The academics argue that the Supreme Court’s ruling not only impacts the specific textbook but also sets a precedent that could affect future educational content and academic freedom in India. They emphasize that a healthy democracy relies on the ability of educators and scholars to engage in open discourse and critique institutional decisions.
Conclusion
The letter from the 51 academics highlights a significant intersection of law, education, and democracy in India. As the situation unfolds, the implications of the Supreme Court’s orders will likely resonate through the educational landscape, influencing how textbooks are developed and the extent to which educators can operate freely.
Note: The information presented in this article is based on events and statements as of April 2026 and may evolve as the situation develops.
