2 min readUpdated: Mar 10, 2026 10:38 AM IST
A day before the Supreme Court is set to take up the matter of the now-withdrawn social science textbook for Class 8, NCERT has tendered an “unconditional and unqualified apology” for the chapter on the judiciary.
“The National Council of Educational Research and Training [NCERT] has recently published a social science textbook, “Exploring Society: India and Beyond,” Grade 8 (Part II), which contained Chapter IV titled “The Role of Judiciary in our Society.” The Director and Members of NCERT hereby tender an unconditional and unqualified apology for the said Chapter IV. The entire book has been withdrawn and is not available,” the Council said.
ALSO READ | ‘Judiciary corruption’ row: How are new NCERT textbooks drafted and cleared?
“We sincerely regret the inconvenience caused and appreciate the understanding of all stakeholders. NCERT remains committed to maintaining the highest standards of accuracy, sensitivity, and responsibility in educational content,” NCERT added in a post on X.
In the chapter on the role of the judiciary, the book, released two weeks ago, contained a section on “corruption in the judiciary”.
The Indian Express report on February 23.
What Supreme Court said
Taking up a suo motu case in the matter, the Supreme Court came down heavily on NCERT, calling it a “calculated move to undermine and demean the dignity of the judiciary”. The top court imposed a “complete blanket ban” on further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the book.
ALSO READ | Before ‘corruption in judiciary’, the 15 instances where NCERT textbook revisions went unchallenged
Story continues below this ad
Hearing the matter in February, Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said, “As head of the judiciary, it is my duty to find out who is the person responsible. If there is more than one, heads must roll. Accountability must be there. I am not going to close these proceedings until I am satisfied.”
The Supreme Court, referring to the NCERT director, stated in its order, “Instead of having an introspection of what had been written in the book in a most reckless, irresponsible, contemptuous and motivated manner, the Director responded in writing, defending the contents of the book.”
