On Friday, May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court directed a committee led by a former apex court judge to review the inclusion of cartoons in National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks. The directive followed an objection raised by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who argued that “textbook is not a space where you use cartoons.”
The issue surfaced during a suo motu hearing regarding a controversy over a Class 8 Social Science textbook. Previously, in February, the Court had concluded that specific content in the text was intended toward “maligning the Indian judiciary,” leading to the initiation of contempt proceedings and a “blanket and complete” ban on the book.
Did You Know?
The review committee is headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra and includes senior advocate K.K. Venugopal and Prof. Prakash Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University. The group is currently collaborating with the National Judicial Academy at Bhopal to shape Legal Studies curricula.
Concerns Over Satire and Education
Representing the Union Government, Mr. Mehta clarified that he held no objections to cartoons “per se.” However, he argued that the specific context in which they appeared in school materials was problematic, as the books reach children of an “impressionable age.” He maintained that it may not be proper to utilize satire or lampoon within the confines of a study book.
The Court’s decision to involve the committee reflects a broader balancing act between educational standards and the protection of institutional reputation. While the Bench agreed to the review, it has historically acknowledged the value of satire. In the 2020 judgment of Indibily Creative (P) Ltd. V. State of West Bengal, the Court recognized satire’s “unique ability to quickly and clearly make a point,” cautioning that choking such expression could stifle debate and endanger community stability.
Expert Insight:
The Court faces a complex challenge in reconciling its past judicial defense of satire with current concerns regarding the portrayal of the judiciary in academic settings. By delegating the review to an expert committee, the judiciary is seeking a measured approach to resolve the tension between protecting the dignity of state institutions and upholding the pedagogical role of critical inquiry in classrooms.
What Comes Next
The committee is expected to assess the propriety of the cartoons in question. Based on their findings, the government may move to revise or remove specific illustrations from NCERT materials to align with the concerns raised by the Solicitor General. This proves likely that the outcome of this review will set a precedent for how satire is handled in future school curricula.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Solicitor General’s primary objection?
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that textbooks are not appropriate spaces for cartoons, particularly because they are viewed by children of an “impressionable age.”
What is the status of the Class 8 Social Science textbook mentioned?
Following a conclusion that the content was intended to “malign the Indian judiciary,” the Court initiated contempt proceedings and ordered a “blanket and complete” ban on the textbook in February.
Who is responsible for reviewing the cartoons?
The review is being conducted by a committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra, in collaboration with the National Judicial Academy at Bhopal.
How do you believe educational materials should balance the use of satire with the need for institutional respect?
