In February 2026, the Supreme Court banned an NCERT Class 8 (Part 2) Social Science textbook because one section in a chapter on “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society” mentioned corruption and backlogs in the judiciary by citing official data and quoting a former Chief Justice. The Supreme Court bench banned the entire textbook, which was withdrawn from the market and issued notices for criminal contempt of court against the NCERT Director and a Secretary in the Ministry of Education, both of whom tendered unconditional apologies.

A month later, the Supreme Court bench barred the three respected academics named by the NCERT (Michel Danino, Alok Prasanna Kumar, and Suparna Diwakar) as having drafted the contentious chapter from being associated with any publicly funded institution in India. This ostracization from the academic world was ordered without giving the three academics an opportunity to be heard.

In the meanwhile, fifty-one academics from IITs, IIMs, IISc, JNU, ISI and various other institutions wrote a letter to President Droupadi Murmu, which raised the following objections: 

1. On legal grounds, a book in India can only be banned by law and not by judicial fiat. Several legal scholars had argued in the media that the Court had indeed overstepped its powers.
2. On due process grounds, the three named academics were punished with a lifelong blanket without any opportunity to be heard.
3. On proportionality grounds, banning the entire textbook over one subsection in one chapter was excessive; the remaining book could simply have been allowed to be published online. The blanket ban therefore affected Grade 8 students across India.
4. On pedagogical grounds, decisions about what is appropriate for students at an “impressionable age” belong to educationists familiar with the National Education Policy 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023, both of which were created to promote critical thinking and civic awareness.
5. Taken together, these orders have created an “atmosphere of intimidation” that silences constructive criticism of institutions, an indispensable part of a healthy democracy.

The letter finally requested the President to intervene and advise the Ministry of Education on all these issues.

The academics have now moved the Supreme Court clarifying their position, the context of the new textbooks and this chapter, in particular, and challenging the court’s orders. The next date of hearing is set on May 08, 2026. 

But this controversy should not remain a niche concern for academics. It affects all of us. It is a question for every single citizen of India: Are our children entitled to freely learn about real-life challenges our nation is faced with, or should those challenges remain hidden from you? Apart from academic freedom, how will the Supreme Court’s orders impact the wider public’s freedom of expression?

The letter to the President can be accessed here, and a press release here.

By signing this petition, you are saying: “I have read the letter to the President of India and I endorse its arguments and its requests to the President.”

Two final requests:

(1) You may add a designation after your name if you so wish;

(2) If you post any comment, please ensure it uses polite and respectful language – this petition indirectly supports the upholding of high ethical values in public life.