The Supreme Court of India has initiated a suo motu case concerning a chapter in a Class 8 Social Science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). The chapter reportedly addresses issues of corruption within the judiciary and case backlogs.
Supreme Court Takes Action
The case, titled “In Re : Social Science Textbook for Grade-8(Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues,” was registered today at 4:40 PM. A bench consisting of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi will consider the matter tomorrow.
Concerns regarding the textbook content were initially raised by Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. A.M. Singhvi, who orally presented their concerns to the Chief Justice of India this morning. They argued that the textbook’s content was “scandalising the entire judiciary.”
CJI’s Response and NCERT’s Action
Chief Justice Surya Kant stated he was aware of the issue and that numerous judges had expressed their concern. He affirmed, “I will not allow anyone on the earth to taint the integrity and defame the entire institution,” and indicated he had ordered the suo motu action. The CJI characterized the inclusion of the content as a “calculated measure.”
Following the Chief Justice’s expression of unhappiness with the textbook’s content, NCERT reportedly withdrew the book.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the Supreme Court’s action?
The Supreme Court initiated a suo motu case after concerns were raised about a Class 8 NCERT textbook chapter that discussed corruption in the judiciary and case backlogs.
Who raised the initial concerns about the textbook?
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Dr. A.M. Singhvi orally mentioned their concerns to the Chief Justice of India, stating the content was scandalising the judiciary.
What is the next step in this process?
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul Pancholi will consider the case tomorrow.
What implications might this case have for the balance between public critique of institutions and the need to maintain institutional integrity?
