Scholars Urge President to Intervene in NCERT Textbook Ban Row

Amid the ongoing controversy surrounding a withdrawn Class 8 social science textbook, over 50 academicians have written to Droupadi Murmu, raising concerns about what they describe as “judicial overreach” by the Supreme Court of India. The dispute centres on a textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training, which included a chapter on the judiciary that triggered legal scrutiny.

In their letter dated April 7, the 51 signatories urged the President to intervene and ask the Union Ministry of Education to approach the court for withdrawal of the ban. They also called for relief from the punitive actions taken against noted educationist Michel Danino, academic Suparna Diwakar, and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar, who were associated with the Textbook Development Team. The scholars warned that the issue could have far-reaching consequences for academic freedom and the future of education in India.

The textbook in question, aligned with the National Education Policy 2020 and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023, was published on February 24. However, a chapter discussing the judiciary—particularly references to case pendency and corruption—sparked controversy. Acting suo motu on February 26, the Supreme Court termed portions of the content “offending,” imposed a ban on the book, and later directed institutions to distance themselves from the individuals involved.

The signatories argue that such action exceeds judicial authority. Citing legal interpretations, they contend that banning a book should require a legislative framework rather than direct court intervention. They also raised concerns about a possible violation of natural justice, pointing out that the individuals faced punitive measures without being given a proper hearing, potentially affecting their fundamental rights, including their livelihoods.

Beyond legal concerns, the scholars emphasized the academic implications of the ban. They argued that the decision has curtailed open discussion and prevented educators from objectively examining the chapter. According to them, the court’s ruling relied on selective excerpts rather than a comprehensive review of the content, undermining the broader goal of fostering critical thinking among students.

The group also suggested that a less extreme approach—such as removing or revising the disputed section while allowing the rest of the textbook—could have been adopted. Instead, they warn, the blanket ban risks creating an atmosphere of caution and self-censorship within academic circles.

In their appeal, the scholars have called for multiple steps: withdrawal of the ban, reinstatement of the textbook without the contentious portions, revocation of action against the three individuals, and the inclusion of a wider range of academic voices in any future review process.

The controversy highlights a deeper tension between judicial authority and academic independence, raising important questions about how educational content should be reviewed, regulated, and debated in a democratic society.