NCERT under scrutiny: Legal literacy or political agenda?

A student asked me what the legal term “suo motu” means after reading a news report about an NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) Class 8 social science textbook that described “corruption at various levels of the judiciary” as a challenge, and about the Chief Justice of India (CJI) taking suo motu cognizance of the issue. I was pleased that a young student was curious to understand a term unfamiliar to many adults. During our discussion, I raised a broader question: whether our education system is genuinely interested in creating awareness about how the judiciary functions in the country and whether students are encouraged to acquire adequate legal literacy.

By analysing the statements of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who, along with a few other senior advocates, expressed concern over the inclusion of a section on “corruption in the judiciary” in the Class 8 textbook and described it as “absolutely scandalous,” as well as the response of the CJI—who stated, “Please wait for a few days. The Bar and the Bench are perturbed. All High Court judges are perturbed. I will take up the matter suo motu. I will not allow anybody to defame the institution. The law will take its course”—we can better assess whether the reactions of the legal fraternity are justified.

The senior advocates’ characterisation of the references in the chapter as “selective,” coupled with the CJI’s criticism that the inclusion of the controversial section amounted to a “very calculated and deep-rooted conspiracy,” raises a crucial question: whether NCERT had a hidden agenda or whether it is being influenced or controlled by forces within the government.

The legal fraternity’s strong reactions also raise several important questions: whether there have been proven cases of corruption in the judiciary; whether the inclusion of such content is appropriate for Class 8 students; and whether students have the right to be informed about such so-called realities. It is equally important to analyse the potential impact on students if this section were read and discussed in the classroom.

A comparison of the old and revised textbooks, with specific reference to the chapter on the role of the judiciary in society, reveals the likely intentions of the textbook writers/editors and NCERT. While the earlier textbook focused on themes such as the role and independence of the judiciary, the structure of courts, and access to justice, the revised version places greater emphasis on challenges confronting the judiciary, including the massive backlog of cases, complex legal procedures, and corruption within the system.

The section titled “Justice Delayed Is Justice Denied” states that “on account of multiple reasons, such as a lack of an adequate number of judges, complicated legal procedures, and poor infrastructure, the judicial system in our country has a massive backlog,” and cites data from the National Judicial Data (as of March 2025). It lists the number of pending cases as follows: Supreme Court—81,000; High Courts—62,40,000; and district and other subordinate courts—4,70,00,000.

The controversial section titled “Corruption in the Judiciary” refers to a code of conduct for judges, known as the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, and highlights a statement made in July 2025 by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice Gavai, who remarked: “Sadly, there have been instances of corruption and misconduct that have surfaced even within the judiciary…”.

A close reading of the text suggests that opinions and unverified assertions are presented as facts, raising concerns about whether the revision functions as propaganda against the judiciary or reflects some other hidden agenda. Textbook content should be grounded in verified facts and reliable data, not in viewpoints drawn from newspaper or magazine opinion pieces. Students must be presented with objective information rather than being exposed to perspectives that may unduly influence their thinking or lead them to develop a negative perception of the judiciary.

If Justice Gavai had cited concrete, legally established cases of corruption within the judiciary, their inclusion could be justified in an appropriate academic context. However, presenting such contentious material—especially without detailed evidence—to Grade 8 students raises serious pedagogical and ethical concerns.

In general, most students in our country lack knowledge about the judiciary and basic legal literacy. To nurture informed citizens, it is essential to empower students to understand how the judiciary functions, the challenges it faces, and their legal rights. However, this empowerment is possible only if the textual material is appropriate for the students’ level and free from any hidden ideological bias.

Over the past decade, NCERT has been widely criticised for revising school textbooks through the selective removal, reduction, or modification of content in ways that appear to align with a particular political ideology. Critics argue that these revisions amount to an attempt to rewrite history and present students with a distorted version of the past. Notable examples of such changes include the deletion of chapters on the Mughal Empire from the Class 7 history textbook; the removal of the theory of evolution and several key environmental topics from the Class 9 and 10 curricula; the reframing of Mughal emperors primarily as brutal rulers; and the omission of references to Mahatma Gandhi’s opposition to Hindu extremism, the 2002 Gujarat riots, and the 1992 Babri Masjid demolition.

Taken together, these examples and NCERT’s recent functioning suggest that the institution is not free from political influence. The so-called “autonomous body” appears to have become susceptible to the interests of those in power. Strengthening institutional independence and ensuring genuine autonomy are therefore the need of the hour.

In this case, the prompt intervention of the judiciary, with the Chief Justice of India (CJI) taking suo motu cognisance of the issue, led NCERT to withdraw the textbook and issue an apology for “inappropriate textual material and an error of judgement.” Had the Supreme Court of India intervened in a similar manner when criticisms of NCERT were raised by critics in the recent past, it would have constituted a significant service to the cause of education. Unfortunately, the Court failed to do so.

(The writer is an ELT resource person and education columnist. rayanal@yahoo.co.uk)

(Sign up for THEdge, The Hindu’s weekly education newsletter.)

Published – February 26, 2026 04:22 pm IST