The Day a Chapter Disappeared

On February 24, a newly released Class 8 Social Science textbook quietly entered circulation. Within hours, it triggered a constitutional ripple strong enough to reach the highest court of the land.

The book — Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Vol II — published by National Council of Educational Research and Training, contained a chapter titled “The Role of Judiciary in our Society.” A section referencing “corruption in the judiciary” sparked immediate controversy.

By evening, the Supreme Court of India had expressed strong disapproval. Chief Justice of India Surya Kant described it as a “calculated move” and indicated he would take up the issue suo motu.

Within hours, NCERT apologised and withdrew the textbook.

A chapter meant to explain justice had itself entered a trial.

What Exactly Happened?

The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) issued an official statement outlining the sequence of events surrounding the controversy. The textbook in question was released on February 24, 2026, but Chapter 4 contained “inappropriate textual material and an error of judgment,” prompting swift action.

The Department of School Education and Literacy, under the Ministry of Education, immediately directed that distribution be halted to prevent further dissemination. NCERT clarified that the inclusion of the contentious material was “purely unintentional,” emphasising it was not deliberate.

In response, the chapter will be rewritten and reintroduced only in the 2026–27 academic session. The board also reaffirmed its “highest regard” for the judiciary as guardian of the Constitution and protector of fundamental rights.

Though the incident lasted less than 24 hours in terms of actual distribution, its implications for educational content oversight and public trust may endure far longer.

The Real Question: Can Students Discuss Judicial Corruption?

This is where the story deepens—and where most media coverage stopped.

India's judiciary, while revered as the guardian of the Constitution, has faced documented accountability challenges, including rare but significant impeachment proceedings and public controversies.

Historical Impeachment Cases

• In 2011, Calcutta High Court Judge Soumitra Sen became the first judge recommended for removal by Rajya Sabha (189-17 vote) for misappropriating Rs 33.23 lakh as a court receiver and misrepresenting facts; he resigned before Lok Sabha action, marking a historic parliamentary debate on judicial misconduct.
• Earlier, in 1993, Supreme Court Judge V. Ramaswami faced impeachment for alleged fund misuse but survived due to Lok Sabha abstentions, highlighting political hurdles in the process under Article 124(4).
• Other attempts include 2018 motions against CJI Dipak Misra (rejected preliminarily) and Justice P.D. Dinakaran (land appropriation charges, withdrawn).

Notable Controversies

Former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi (2018-2019) sparked public discourse post-retirement with his swift Rajya Sabha nomination by the government, amid allegations of favourable rulings on issues like Article 370 and electoral bonds, raising questions on judicial independence and post-retirement perks.

Civil Society and Reform Calls

Groups like the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) have urged structural reforms, criticising Parliament's impeachment monopoly, ineffective in-house procedures, and executive influence in appointments, advocating a judicial council for accountability insulated from politics.

The Centre for Civil Society (CCS) and others propose Lokpal-like oversight, asset declarations, and codes of conduct, noting Supreme Court rulings like K. Veeraswami (1991) affirming judges as public servants (with CJI permission for probes) and CPIO v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (2019) subjecting CJI to RTI for transparency.

These cases, drawn from parliamentary records, Supreme Court observations, and public reports, underscore constitutional processes for addressing lapses while protecting independence.

If such instances exist in the public domain—as validated by official inquiries and debates—should textbooks ignore them entirely?

Or present them with nuance, full context (e.g., rarity of impeachments succeeding, judiciary's achievements in rights protection), and details on institutional safeguards like the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968?

This forms the core educational dilemma at the heart of the NCERT controversy.

Institutional Respect vs. Critical Thinking

India’s Constitution establishes the judiciary as an independent pillar of democracy, serving as the final interpreter of rights and laws under Articles 124-147, ensuring checks on executive and legislative actions.

Democratic education, however, demands teaching students about accountability mechanisms like judicial impeachment under Article 124(4), which requires a special majority in Parliament following inquiry by a committee.

It also involves explaining checks and balances, such as the collegium system for appointments (evolved via Supreme Court judgments like Second Judges Case, 1993) and in-house procedures for misconduct.

Core Challenge

The issue isn't discussing potential lapses—it's how: with factual nuance, historical context (e.g., rare successes like Soumitra Sen's 2011 proceedings), and emphasis on the judiciary's role in landmark rights protections like Kesavananda Bharati (1973 basic structure doctrine).

What to Avoid

• Generalisation: Painting all judges with an isolated cases' brush, ignoring over 20,000 judges' daily integrity.
• Sensational framing: Headline-style accusations without evidence or outcomes.
• Undermining credibility: Omitting the judiciary's achievements, like PIL expansions for public interest.

Yet education must not:

• Sanitise history: Ignoring documented parliamentary debates or Justice Ramaswami's 1993 impeachment attempt.
• Dodge realities: Overlooking reform calls for transparency, like mandatory asset disclosures post-Veeraswami (1991).
• Shield inquiry: Preventing academic discourse on post-retirement appointments or NJAC debates (struck down 2015).

The NCERT incident exposes this razor-thin line: responsible critique fosters informed citizens, while perceived defamation erodes trust—balancing reverence with reason is education's true test.

Why This Story Matters More Than It Appears

Headlines reduced the NCERT textbook halt to a "controversial paragraph withdrawn," but it raises a profound national question: What civic education should 13-year-olds receive in middle school?

India's current approach leans toward ideal constitutional theory—emphasising the judiciary's role as democracy's pillar—without delving into real-world accountability.

Ideal Theory vs. Responsible Realism

Purely aspirational teaching risks producing naive citizens unaware of mechanisms like impeachment under Article 124(4) or the collegium system's evolution.

Early, careful lessons on institutional checks—framed with context and safeguards—build critical thinkers who respect systems while questioning lapses.

Global Benchmarks

• United States: Middle school curricula cover the Watergate scandal, Nixon's impeachment process, and the judicial Watergate tapes ruling, teaching executive accountability within constitutional bounds.
• South Africa: Post-apartheid textbooks discuss the judiciary's complicity under apartheid, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's role, and reforms like the Judicial Service Commission for independence.
• South Korea: Civics education includes the 2017 Park Geun-hye impeachment, constitutional court proceedings, and lessons on democratic corrections post-authoritarianism.

These nations integrate failures into structured legal narratives, fostering resilience without cynicism.

India grapples with this balance: shielding young minds from "uncomfortable truths" or equipping them for a flawed-yet-perfectible democracy. The NCERT episode signals it's time to evolve.

The Speed of Withdrawal: Institutional Sensitivity in Action

The NCERT textbook's withdrawal unfolded with remarkable speed, highlighting acute institutional responsiveness in India's governance framework.

Within hours of the February 24, 2026, release, judicial disapproval emerged, prompting the Department of School Education and Literacy to halt distribution nationwide.

Swift Sequence of Events

• NCERT issued a public apology, labelling the Chapter 4 content as an "error of judgement" and "purely unintentional."
• A commitment was made to rewrite the chapter for the 2026–27 academic session, ensuring no further circulation.
• The board reaffirmed its "highest regard" for the judiciary as the Constitution's guardian and rights protector.

This rapid chain—disapproval, halt, apology, rewrite—demonstrates three key dynamics.

Key Implications

The judiciary's quick signalling underscores its protective stance on institutional integrity, prioritising dignity amid public scrutiny.

The executive's education arm, under the Ministry, exhibited agility, aligning with higher directives to preempt escalation.

Overall, it reveals a governance ecosystem where institutional image and constitutional reverence supersede prolonged debate, treating educational content as a high-stakes arena for national symbols.

Such sensitivity ensures stability but prompts questions on balancing critique with respect in civic discourse.

The Missing Conversation: Judicial Accountability Mechanisms

The NCERT controversy could have sparked a vital dialogue on judicial accountability, rather than the outright removal of the topic.

A balanced textbook approach would educate without controversy by embedding facts within constitutional frameworks.

Constructive Alternatives

• Impeachment Procedures: Detail Article 124(4) for Supreme Court judges and Article 217 for High Court judges, requiring a motion by 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members, inquiry by a committee (CJI or judge + two others), and special majority passage in both Houses.
• Parliament's Oversight Role: Explain Parliament's constitutional duty as the sole removal authority, with historical precedents like the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, ensuring due process.
• Internal Ethics Frameworks: Cover the 1997 "in-house procedure" established by the Supreme Court for addressing misconduct through peer review by the Chief Justice of India and senior colleagues, as affirmed in cases like K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991).
• Factual Historical Examples: Reference rare cases—like Justice Soumitra Sen's 2011 impeachment proceedings or Justice V. Ramaswami's 1993 attempt—presented neutrally with outcomes, rarity (only one resignation, no removals), and emphasis on the judiciary's self-correcting mechanisms.

This method converts potential controversy into constitutional literacy, fostering respect for institutions while equipping students with knowledge of safeguards. It honours India's democratic maturity without undermining trust.

Beyond Blame: A Lesson for Curriculum Design

Curriculum writing in a democracy transcends academics—it's inherently political, constitutional, and ethical, influencing how future citizens perceive power structures.

Textbooks mould young minds by shaping their understanding of authority, from the judiciary's independence to executive accountability, and inspiring active governance engagement.

Lasting Implications

The NCERT episode transcends a single withdrawn chapter; it spotlights how India calibrates classroom discourse boundaries between reverence for institutions and critical inquiry.

It challenges educators to craft content that honours constitutional dignity while fostering informed scepticism, ensuring textbooks build resilient democrats rather than unquestioning loyalists.

This balance defines whether India's civic education empowers or echoes official narratives.

Conclusion: Democracy Is Strong Enough for Honest Education

Democracy thrives when institutions face examination, but falters under reckless critique or outright suppression.

The swift withdrawal of Exploring Society: India and Beyond, Vol II transcends administrative correction, serving as a stark reminder of textbooks' constitutional weight in shaping national narratives.

Core Takeaways

Institutional respect must coexist with critical thinking to nurture informed citizens.

Education's duty is to inform thoughtfully, avoiding sensationalism that inflames divisions.

For Class 8 students, the true lesson emerges: Justice extends beyond courtrooms to how truth, responsibility, and accountability are conveyed in classrooms.

Even a textbook can join this unfolding story of democratic maturity.

Disclaimer

This article is based on public reports and official statements as of February 26, 2026, regarding the NCERT textbook controversy. It presents factual events and constitutional mechanisms without endorsing any political viewpoint. Views expressed aim to foster balanced civic discourse. Readers should consult primary sources for complete context.

References

• https://www.indiatoday.in
• https://www.indiatoday.in
• https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com
• https://www.gktoday.in

.    .    .