Supreme Court forms panel to review NCERT chapter on 'judicial corruption'

Centre tells Supreme Court it has finalised an expert panel to review NCERT content on alleged judicial corruption, including senior legal figures and a sitting judge

The Union government on Friday informed the Supreme Court of India that it has finalised the composition of an expert panel to examine the contentious NCERT material on alleged judicial corruption. The proposed committee will include Senior Advocate and former Attorney General for India K K Venugopal, former Supreme Court judge Indu Malhotra, and Justice Aniruddha Bose of the Supreme Court.

 

Appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, outlined the government’s proposal, noting that the identified members have agreed to participate in reviewing and shaping the revised chapter.

   

The controversy stems from a Class 8 social science text prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), which drew judicial scrutiny over its discussion on corruption within the judiciary. The top court had earlier taken suo motu cognisance and halted the use of the material, following which the NCERT withdrew the chapter and issued a public apology.

 

When informed that a revised version might be reintroduced in the upcoming academic session, the court insisted that no such inclusion should take place without prior vetting by an independent committee constituted by the Centre. It had also indicated that the panel should ideally include a retired senior judge, a distinguished academic, and an experienced legal practitioner. 

 

Additionally, the court restrained the original authors of the chapter from participating in other publicly funded academic work.

 

In a separate but connected plea concerning a statement in an earlier textbook, suggesting that recent rulings portray slum dwellers as encroachers, the Bench declined to interfere. It observed that the remark reflected an interpretative view of a judgment and fell within the realm of permissible opinion. The court also noted that the issue had lost relevance since the textbook in question was already being replaced, and accordingly disposed of the petition.