Michel Danino says NCERT ‘threw us under the bus’ after Supreme Court textbook controversy

Days after the Supreme Court of India recalled portions of its order directing institutions to disassociate themselves from him, educationist Michel Danino has sharply criticised the handling of the controversy by NCERT, accusing the body of abandoning textbook contributors to protect itself.

The controversy stemmed from references to corruption and judicial delays in a revised Class 8 social science textbook, which led the Supreme Court earlier this year to pass an order directing governments and publicly funded institutions to distance themselves from Danino, educationist Suparna Divakar and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar.

Speaking after the court partially recalled the order, Danino described the original direction as unprecedented and excessively harsh, arguing that it effectively amounted to a lifelong academic ban without due process.

He said the order had immediate professional consequences, including the termination of his guest professor contract at IIT Gandhinagar. According to Danino, neither he nor his co-authors were given an opportunity to present their side before punitive directions were issued.

Danino alleged that NCERT failed to properly explain the pedagogical framework behind the textbook before the court and instead “threw us under the bus” in an attempt to shield itself from criticism. He claimed the institution did not consult the authors before filing affidavits and later removed them from committees without any formal communication.

Despite the dispute, Danino defended the broader educational philosophy behind the revised textbooks, saying social science education cannot avoid controversy if it aims to build critical thinking among students.

Referring to the objectives of the National Education Policy 2020, he argued that textbooks should prepare students to engage with real-world complexities rather than present “sanitized” versions of institutions and public life.

Danino also rejected the idea that middle-school students are too “impressionable” to discuss institutional challenges, saying modern educational theory supports introducing critical discussions from Grade 6 onwards.

Looking back, he admitted that one subsection title — “Corruption in the judiciary” — could perhaps have been phrased differently, though he maintained that the chapter itself was balanced and respectful. He emphasised that much of the discussion relied on observations previously made by judges themselves regarding challenges within the judicial system.

The academic further warned that the controversy could create a “chilling effect” on textbook writers and educators, discouraging them from addressing complex or sensitive subjects in classrooms for fear of backlash.

Danino also revealed that he no longer intends to participate in textbook writing, saying the experience reinforced how vulnerable academics can become during institutional controversies. Despite the episode, he said he remains committed to continuing his intellectual and educational work independently.