NCERT Must Heed the Lesson in the Court’s Rebuke, Institutional Accountability and the Making of Textbooks
A Former Director Reflects on the Crisis of Credibility When a Textbook Mention of Judicial Corruption Triggered a Supreme Court Ban
The Supreme Court of India’s recent intervention over a section on corruption in the judiciary has sent shockwaves through the educational establishment. One is shocked and disturbed by all that has followed media reports on a certain chapter in a Class VIII Social Science textbook. But beyond the immediate controversy lies a deeper set of questions about institutional responsibility, professional competence, and the delicate relationship between the bodies that shape India’s future.
On a broader canvas, the institutional relationship between these bodies deserves to be examined to ensure higher levels of professional competence and the delivery of justice to all—whether an individual, an institution, or an organisation. Public institutions are expected to be mutually supportive in their pursuit of excellence. Institutional credibility is a consequence of the competence, commitment, and contributions of its internal professionals.
The Supreme Court enjoys the trust and confidence of every Indian. There are other institutions that also make Indians proud. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) is one of them—an institution that J.S. Rajput, the author of this reflection, served for three decades as a professor, including five years as its director. His perspective is not that of an outside critic but of someone who knows the institution from within, who understands its processes, its strengths, and its vulnerabilities.
The NCERT’s Vital Role
The NCERT is an autonomous body created and funded by the Government of India. It nurtures the future of India and attempts to transform innocent persons into responsible personalities. It sustains dynamism in education and prepares the young in their pursuit of knowledge. The judiciary at every level consists of judges and lawyers who hold the NCERT in great respect. From extensive personal experience, Rajput notes that they have never hesitated to express their gratitude to the organisation.
This respect is not accidental. Over six decades, the NCERT has built a reputation for academic excellence through the work of its scholars, many of whom have made illustrious contributions to their fields. Its textbooks have shaped the minds of generations of Indians, including those who now sit on the benches of the Supreme Court and the high courts. The relationship between the NCERT and the judiciary has been one of mutual respect and recognition.
However, the section on corruption in the judiciary has exposed vulnerabilities in the preparation of textbooks and, it must be stated unhesitatingly, dented the credibility of the NCERT—credibility that has been built over six decades by its academics.
The Court’s Intervention
The Supreme Court passed a judgment on March 11, imposing a ban on three senior professionals in connection with the chapter on corruption. Their names were included in the submission made by the NCERT to the Court. Presumably, they never got an opportunity to present their case. None of them is an NCERT academic, yet their reputations stand tarnished.
As a lay person, fully conscious of one’s own inadequacies, one wonders whether such a situation should be inflicted upon any citizen without being given an opportunity to present his or her version. The principle of natural justice—audi alteram partem, hear the other side—is fundamental to any fair proceeding. Yet here, it appears, individuals were condemned without a hearing.
This is not to defend the content of the textbook. The question of whether corruption in the judiciary should be discussed in a Class VIII textbook is a legitimate subject of debate. But the process by which such content is vetted, approved, and published—and the process by which accountability is assigned when things go wrong—are equally important.
The Question of Responsibility
One also wonders how the NCERT could publish books without ensuring that someone is fully responsible for the suitability of the content. The NCERT has around 500 academics, including teachers. The practice followed in the preparation of textbooks up to 2004 was to solicit expert advice from across the country to ensure the national character of the output, but the final responsibility rested with the regular academic experts of the NCERT.
This distinction is crucial. External experts provide input, but internal academics bear responsibility. They are the ones who must ensure that the content meets the standards of accuracy, appropriateness, and educational soundness that the NCERT’s reputation demands. When something goes wrong, the responsibility lies with them—and ultimately with the director.
Morally and ethically, every word published by the NCERT is the responsibility of the director. It may appear harsh on my part, but an organisation entrusted with educating the young in human values must also practise those values. Autonomy necessarily brings accountability. The ministry cannot be faulted for what is fully and completely the responsibility of the NCERT.
This is not a technical point about administrative procedure. It is a fundamental principle of institutional governance. If the NCERT is autonomous, it must also be accountable. If it claims the freedom to make decisions about content, it must also accept responsibility for those decisions. Blaming external experts or pointing to complex approval processes is an evasion, not an explanation.
The Verma Committee’s Wisdom
Rajput recalls his privilege of being a member of the committee set up by the Government of India under the chairmanship of Chief Justice J.S. Verma to conceptualise ways to teach Fundamental Duties to citizens. Though the focus was on duties, it was not possible to do justice to the assigned task without bringing in the mutuality of rights and duties, fundamental rights included.
The report quoted Mahatma Gandhi: “I learned from my illiterate but wise mother that all rights to be deserved and preserved come from duties well done.” It deserves to be recalled and analysed in the present context.
The NCERT has rights—to autonomy, to academic freedom, to determine its curriculum. But those rights come with duties—to ensure accuracy, to exercise judgment, to be accountable for outcomes. The institution that teaches the young about their duties must itself model the performance of duty. When it fails to do so, it loses the moral authority to teach others.
The Path Forward
The NCERT must play its role with reassured professional competence and confidence. Let it help prepare the best minds, including those who may serve at every level of the judiciary. Let the NCERT receive the reverence of a national guru from everyone, including the Supreme Court of India.
But reverence cannot be demanded; it must be earned. It is earned through consistent performance, through demonstrated competence, through willingness to acknowledge and correct mistakes. The current crisis is an opportunity for the NCERT to reflect on its processes, to strengthen its quality control mechanisms, and to reaffirm its commitment to the highest standards of educational excellence.
This does not mean retreating from difficult subjects. Education should prepare young people to understand the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. A textbook that never mentions corruption, that presents all institutions as flawless, that avoids every controversial topic, is not doing its job. But the manner of presentation matters. Context matters. Balance matters. And above all, accuracy matters.
The section that triggered the current controversy may have been factually correct—corruption in the judiciary is a subject that has been discussed by eminent jurists, including past chief justices. But factual correctness is not the only criterion. Educational materials must also be age-appropriate, must provide sufficient context, must not undermine respect for institutions while acknowledging their imperfections.
The Institutional Ecosystem
The relationship between the NCERT and the judiciary is part of a larger institutional ecosystem. Each institution has its role, its responsibilities, its sphere of autonomy. The judiciary interprets the law and adjudicates disputes. The NCERT educates the young and shapes their understanding of the world. When these institutions interact, as they have in this case, the interaction must be governed by mutual respect and adherence to proper procedures.
The Supreme Court’s intervention was triggered by a specific passage in a textbook. But its implications extend far beyond that passage. It raises questions about who decides what children learn, about how educational materials are vetted, about the balance between institutional autonomy and accountability, about the proper role of the judiciary in reviewing educational content.
These are not questions with easy answers. They require careful thought, open dialogue, and a commitment to the principles that underpin both education and justice.
Conclusion: Learning from the Lesson
The NCERT must heed the lesson in the Court’s rebuke. Not by retreating into timidity, not by avoiding all controversial subjects, but by strengthening its processes, affirming its accountability, and recommitting to the highest standards of educational excellence.
The institution that has shaped the minds of generations of Indians, that has earned respect at home and abroad, that has contributed to the nation’s development in countless ways, has within it the capacity to learn from this experience and emerge stronger.
The goal is not to produce textbooks that please everyone—that is impossible. The goal is to produce textbooks that are accurate, balanced, and educationally sound; that prepare young people to understand their world and to act responsibly within it; that reflect the best of Indian scholarship and the highest standards of Indian education.
If the NCERT can achieve that goal, it will indeed receive the reverence of a national guru from everyone, including the Supreme Court of India. The path is difficult, but the destination is worth the journey.
Q&A: Unpacking the NCERT Textbook Controversy
Q1: What triggered the Supreme Court’s intervention in the NCERT textbook case?
A: The controversy centred on a section in a Class VIII Social Science textbook that mentioned corruption in the judiciary as a factor affecting the delivery of justice. The Supreme Court took judicial cognizance, banned the book, and ordered all physical and digital copies prevented from circulation. Chief Justice Surya Kant saw in it a “deep-rooted conspiracy to malign and undermine the judiciary.” The Court later imposed a ban on three senior professionals connected to the chapter.
Q2: What concerns does former NCERT director J.S. Rajput raise about the process?
A: Rajput raises several concerns: first, the three individuals named in the NCERT’s submission to the Court presumably never got an opportunity to present their case, violating principles of natural justice. Second, none of them are NCERT academics, yet their reputations stand tarnished. Third, he questions how the NCERT could publish books without ensuring clear responsibility for content suitability. He argues that morally and ethically, every word published by the NCERT is the responsibility of the director.
Q3: What was the textbook preparation process prior to 2004, according to Rajput?
A: Up to 2004, the NCERT’s practice was to solicit expert advice from across the country to ensure the national character of educational materials. However, the final responsibility rested with the regular academic experts of the NCERT. External experts provided input, but internal academics bore ultimate responsibility for ensuring content met standards of accuracy, appropriateness, and educational soundness. This distinction between input and responsibility is crucial for accountability.
Q4: What lesson does Rajput draw from the J.S. Verma Committee on Fundamental Duties?
A: Rajput recalls the committee’s quotation of Mahatma Gandhi: “I learned from my illiterate but wise mother that all rights to be deserved and preserved come from duties well done.” He applies this principle to the NCERT: the institution has rights to autonomy and academic freedom, but these come with duties to ensure accuracy, exercise judgment, and be accountable for outcomes. An institution that teaches the young about their duties must itself model the performance of duty.
Q5: What path forward does Rajput suggest for the NCERT?
A: Rajput argues the NCERT must play its role with reassured professional competence and confidence. It must strengthen its quality control mechanisms, affirm its accountability, and recommit to the highest standards of educational excellence. This does not mean avoiding difficult subjects—education should prepare young people to understand the real world. But it does mean ensuring content is accurate, balanced, age-appropriate, and presented with sufficient context. The goal is to produce textbooks worthy of the institution’s six-decade reputation.
