The Supreme Court on Monday observed that peaceful protest is a constitutionally protected right and said the police cannot resort to a lathicharge merely because people are demonstrating. The remarks came while hearing a batch of petitions alleging excessive police force against students protesting examination paper leaks during the Parliament march held on July 20.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohan said allegations of police excess should be independently examined. The court also stressed the need for uniform national guidelines governing police action during public demonstrations, observing that discipline is essential in a democracy but peaceful protests must remain protected.

The observations assume significance as the Centre prepares to push the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Amendment Bill, 2026 in Parliament, a legislation aimed at strengthening anti-paper leak laws following the nationwide NEET controversy.

Court Questions Police Response

During the hearing, the Bench underlined that agitation alone cannot justify the use of force by law enforcement agencies.

The judges noted that every allegation of excessive police action deserves impartial scrutiny and suggested that uniform operating procedures should be evolved for handling demonstrations across the country. According to the court, maintaining public order and protecting citizens' constitutional rights must go hand in hand.

Parliament March Turned Violent

The petitions relate to the July 20 Parliament march organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) over the alleged NEET paper leak.

The protest began at Jantar Mantar and later moved towards Parliament, with demonstrators marching through Parliament Street, Janpath Crossing, Kartavya Path and Vijay Chowk.

According to reports, clashes erupted after some protesters allegedly breached police barricades and attempted to move towards Parliament. Police responded with tear gas and lathicharge, while incidents of stone-pelting were also reported. More than 100 people, including police personnel and protesters, were reportedly injured during the violence.

The protest site was cleared by evening, although demonstrators returned later that night to resume their agitation.

Matter Reached Supreme Court Multiple Times

The issue has come before the Supreme Court on several occasions over the past two months.

In May, a petition sought a CBI investigation into those associated with the Cockroach Janta Party. The court declined urgent listing, observing there was no immediate emergency.

After the July 20 protest, another petition sought an inquiry into the alleged police assault on demonstrators. At that stage, the Bench declined immediate intervention, stating that it was not relying on video clips placed before it.

A fresh plea was later filed seeking restraint on police action against students participating in protests. The court agreed to hear the matter through the regular listing process.

During Monday's proceedings, the Chief Justice also clarified that reports claiming the court had earlier refused to hear petitions on the issue were inaccurate. He said no formal writ petition had been before the Bench at that stage.

Delhi High Court Also Hearing Case

Separate petitions challenging the police action are also pending before the Delhi High Court.

The High Court has already sought responses from the Union government and Delhi Police while directing authorities to preserve CCTV footage, videography and all records related to the July 20 protest.

Background

The student-led agitation over alleged examination paper leaks continued for 36 days before ending on July 25 following the resignation of former Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.

Pradhan resigned amid mounting pressure over the NEET paper leak controversy, saying recent developments had deeply saddened him.

Social activist Sonam Wangchuk, who had been observing a hunger strike alongside protesting students, also ended his fast after receiving assurances from the government regarding examination reforms.

The Supreme Court's observations now place fresh focus on balancing citizens' right to peaceful protest with the state's responsibility to maintain law and order, even as Parliament prepares to debate tougher legislation against examination malpractices.

Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Wednesday delivered a strong message to the country's young legal professionals, urging them to build their careers through dedication, integrity and courtroom excellence rather than seeking popularity on social media.

Addressing the felicitation ceremony for the 2025 batch of newly qualified Advocates-on-Record (AORs), the Chief Justice said titles and online visibility may attract attention, but they cannot replace the credibility earned through consistent hard work and professional conduct. His remarks come at a time when social media has become an increasingly influential platform for legal discussions and public engagement.

Focus on Quality Work

Congratulating the newly inducted Advocates-on-Record, CJI Surya Kant said joining the AOR community was a significant professional milestone. However, he reminded young lawyers that qualifying as an AOR was only the beginning of their legal journey.

He said a designation could open doors, but it could never guarantee a successful career. According to the Chief Justice, a lawyer's reputation is ultimately determined by the quality of work, legal preparation and commitment demonstrated before the court.

He advised young advocates to ensure that whenever their names appear on a case file, they are recognised for thorough preparation, professionalism and legal competence.

Warning Against Social Media Fame

CJI Surya Kant cautioned lawyers against equating online popularity with professional success. Referring to the growing influence of social media, he observed that attracting attention has become easier than ever, but visibility should not be mistaken for credibility.

He advised advocates to resist the temptation of measuring success through likes, comments and online engagement. Instead, he encouraged them to focus on strengthening their legal knowledge and maintaining the highest professional standards.

"You are not television channels worried about TRP," he remarked while urging lawyers to avoid the race for instant fame on digital platforms.

Courtroom Reputation Matters

Emphasising the importance of professional ethics, the Chief Justice said genuine respect is earned inside courtrooms and among clients, fellow lawyers and members of the Bar.

He noted that the legal profession demands patience, discipline and years of dedicated effort rather than quick recognition through social media.

According to him, lawyers who consistently prepare their cases thoroughly and uphold ethical values build lasting trust, which ultimately defines a successful legal career.

He added that long and respected careers are shaped through serious work inside chambers and courtrooms, not in online comment sections.

Responsibility Beyond Success

The Chief Justice also reminded the newly qualified AORs that the designation brings greater responsibility along with professional recognition.

He said Advocates-on-Record play an important role in the administration of justice before the Supreme Court and are expected to maintain the highest standards of legal practice.

CJI Surya Kant urged young lawyers to preserve the traditions of excellence established by previous generations of Supreme Court advocates while contributing positively to the justice delivery system.

Call for Legal Aid

Highlighting the social responsibilities attached to the legal profession, the Chief Justice appealed to young advocates to actively participate in legal aid initiatives whenever possible.

He stressed that access to justice should not depend on an individual's financial capacity. Lawyers, he said, should make every effort to ensure that economically weaker and socially marginalised citizens receive proper legal representation.

According to the Chief Justice, the legal profession carries a larger public duty of protecting constitutional values and ensuring equal access to justice for every citizen.

Strengthening the Justice System

Legal experts believe the Chief Justice's remarks underline the judiciary's growing emphasis on professional ethics and responsible advocacy in the digital era.

With social media increasingly influencing public perception, the address serves as a reminder that the credibility of legal professionals continues to rest on competence, integrity and commitment inside the courtroom rather than online popularity.

His message is expected to resonate with young advocates entering the profession, encouraging them to focus on building long-term reputations through hard work, ethical conduct and dedicated service to clients and society.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant an urgent hearing on a petition challenging the alleged police action against students during the recent protest at Jantar Mantar led by the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP). The matter came up before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, who refused the request for an immediate listing and made strong remarks while hearing the petitioner's counsel.

During the brief exchange in court, the petitioner's lawyer argued that students had raised significant concerns regarding the conduct of the NEET examination and the functioning of the National Testing Agency (NTA). The counsel requested that the case be listed urgently, citing alleged police excesses during the July 20 protest march and referring to video footage of the incident.

However, the Chief Justice declined to consider the request. Responding to repeated references to video evidence, CJI Surya Kant said, “We are not interested in watching the videos. We don't have time to watch them. We don't want to watch the videos.” When the lawyer again pressed the issue, the CJI remarked, “Don't waste our time.”

Protest Triggered Clashes

The plea stems from the events of 20 July, when the Cockroach Janata Party organised a march from Jantar Mantar to Parliament over the alleged NEET paper leak and other education-related issues. During the march, clashes reportedly broke out between protesters and Delhi Police at multiple locations after security personnel attempted to stop the rally from moving toward Parliament.

Police resorted to baton charges to disperse sections of the crowd. According to official figures, more than 100 protesters and police personnel sustained injuries during the violence. The incident has since become the subject of political debate, legal petitions, and public criticism.

Similar Plea Earlier Rejected

Before approaching the Supreme Court, petitioners had moved the Delhi High Court seeking urgent intervention. The High Court, however, also declined to immediately hear the matter, observing that the court should not be drawn into ongoing political developments.

Despite the setback in both courts, those challenging the police action continue to seek judicial scrutiny into the events surrounding the protest and the alleged use of force against demonstrators.

Bar Association Seeks Probe

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) has called for an independent inquiry into the alleged lathi-charge on student protesters.

In a statement, the association expressed concern over reports that several students suffered serious injuries during the demonstration. It urged authorities to conduct a fair investigation into the circumstances under which force was used and whether standard operating procedures were followed.

Political Tensions Continue

The protest has also triggered sharp political reactions. Opposition parties have criticised the government's handling of the demonstration and demanded accountability for the alleged police action. The issue has disrupted proceedings during the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament, where opposition members have repeatedly raised concerns over the treatment of student protesters and sought discussions on the NEET controversy.

The Centre, meanwhile, has maintained that law enforcement agencies acted to preserve public order and prevent protesters from breaching security restrictions near Parliament.

Background of the CJP Movement

The Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) emerged in May after remarks attributed to CJI Surya Kant referring to some youths as "wandering like cockroaches" generated widespread discussion online. The movement quickly gained traction on social media, attracting a large following and positioning itself around issues related to education reforms and accountability.

In recent weeks, the organisation has intensified its campaign by staging demonstrations at Jantar Mantar and demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the alleged NEET paper leak.

With the Supreme Court declining an urgent hearing and political tensions continuing both inside and outside Parliament, the legal and public debate over the July 20 protest is expected to remain in focus in the coming days.

Cockroach Janta Party vs National Parasitic Front: India’s strangest political battle goes viral

Satirical outfits turn CJI’s ‘cockroach’ remark into million-follower movement

What began as an angry reaction to a controversial remark by Chief Justice Surya Kant has spiralled into what might be India’s most bizarre political showdown. On one side stands the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). On the other, the newly formed National Parasitic Front (NPF). Together, they have turned internet satire into a movement that has clocked over a million followers in less than a week.

Neither outfit is recognised by the Election Commission. Neither has a physical headquarters. But both have manifestos, merchandise, and enough memes to crash a server.

How a courtroom comment sparked a movement

It started on May 16. Speaking on unemployment, Chief Justice Surya Kant reportedly compared certain jobless youth to “cockroaches” and “parasites” feeding off the system. The remarks, delivered during a hearing, spread rapidly across social media.

Within hours, Abhijeet Dipke, a Boston-educated professional, posted a half-joking response: “What if all the cockroaches come together?” By evening, the Cockroach Janta Party had a logo, a Twitter handle, and a website.

“I never anticipated this kind of response,” Dipke told this reporter in a phone interview late Wednesday. “What started as an impulsive joke has become completely organic. People saw themselves in the insult.”

Instagram numbers that surprised everyone

By May 20, CJP’s Instagram following had crossed 1.1 million — briefly overtaking the Bharatiya Janata Party’s official handle on the platform. BJP’s Instagram count, as of Thursday evening, stood at approximately 1.05 million.

Party insiders (if a satirical outfit can have insiders) say the growth is driven entirely by young Indians frustrated with unemployment, exam pressures, and what they call “elite political insulation.”

One volunteer, who requested anonymity, said: “We did a Yamuna clean-up dressed as cockroaches. People thought it was funny. But they also joined.”

Enter the opposition: National Parasitic Front

No political vacuum survives long in India. On May 19, the National Parasitic Front launched as the self-declared “formal opposition” to the Cockroach Janta Party.

The NPF’s website frames “parasites” as citizens surviving within a broken system. Its language parodies revolutionary activism while making pointed arguments about governance failures.

“We attach ourselves to a broken system — not to feed off it, but to force it to change from within,” reads the Front’s official description.

Unlike CJP’s meme-heavy populism, the NPF leans into theatrical absurdism. One of its early posts asked: “Who are the real parasites? The unemployed or the politicians who loot public money?”

Manifestos with bite

Both outfits have published surprisingly coherent manifestos. The CJP’s demands include:

- No post-retirement Rajya Sabha seats for Chief Justices

- 50 per cent reservation for women in Cabinet

- Action against media outlets spreading misinformation

- Long electoral bans for defecting MPs and MLAs

The National Parasitic Front, meanwhile, has focused on institutional accountability, freedom of speech, and what it calls “criminal-free Parliament.”

Reading both documents, one notices a pattern: beneath the jokes lies genuine policy angst.

Politicians take notice

The satire has crossed into real political discourse. Trinamool Congress MPs Mahua Moitra and Kirti Azad have publicly engaged with CJP online. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor told news agency PTI on Thursday that he was “incredibly intrigued” by the rise of such movements, calling it “an opportunity the Opposition must seize.”

Dipke, however, remains cautious. When asked whether CJP would formally register as a political party, he laughed. “Right now, we’re just cockroaches surviving on wifi and outrage. Let’s see how long the internet remembers us.”

What happens next?

Both outfits have already faced their first real test. On May 21, X (formerly Twitter) withheld CJP’s account in India following what the platform called “a legal demand.” Within hours, a new account named “Cockroach is Back” surfaced, crossing 21,000 followers in just over an hour.

“Cockroaches don’t die,” read its first post.

For now, the Election Commission has no comment. Political analysts are divided. Some call it a passing meme storm. Others see it as a glimpse into India’s digital-native political future — where satire organises faster than ideology.

What is clear is this: two insect-themed outfits have done something traditional parties struggle with. They made young Indians laugh, think, and click “follow” — all before breakfast.

Supreme Court Declines Petition to Make Voting Mandatory in India

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down a plea seeking to introduce mandatory voting, making it clear that the matter falls squarely in the policy domain and cannot be enforced through judicial orders. The bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant held that democracy rests on voluntary participation and public awareness rather than legal compulsion.

Bench Rejects Petition

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi dismissed the petition filed by Ajay Goel at the admission stage itself. The court observed that it cannot issue directions for compulsory voting or impose penalties on citizens who abstain from polls.

CJI Emphasises Awareness

Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked during the hearing that democracy thrives on awareness and public participation rather than legal pressure. He noted that in a country governed by the rule of law, citizens are expected to exercise their franchise voluntarily. Forcing them through court orders would be inappropriate, the bench stated.

Voluntary Participation Key

The judges repeatedly stressed that while voting is an important democratic duty, the Constitution does not permit the judiciary to compel citizens to cast their ballots. The court advised the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities instead of seeking judicial intervention on a policy issue.

Practical Hurdles Cited

The bench highlighted several practical difficulties that would arise if mandatory voting were enforced. It pointed out that on election days many citizens, including judges and professionals, remain tied up with work commitments and may not be able to travel to their constituencies.

Impact on Daily Earners

The court expressed particular concern for economically weaker sections, especially daily wage earners who cannot afford to lose a day’s income. Forcing such citizens to vote could create unnecessary hardship, the judges observed, questioning the fairness of any such compulsion.

No Judicial Overreach

The petitioner had also urged the court to direct the Election Commission of India to constitute a committee that could recommend restrictions on government facilities for those who deliberately skip voting. The bench firmly rejected this demand, underlining that decisions on compulsory voting and related penalties belong to the legislature and the executive.

Approach Authorities Advised

The Supreme Court made it clear that the judiciary has no role in framing such policy. It advised the petitioner to take up his grievances with the government and the Election Commission through proper channels. The order brings to a close the latest attempt to convert the right to vote into a compulsory duty.

The development assumes significance at a time when discussions on electoral reforms continue across political circles. By refusing to entertain the plea for mandatory voting, the apex court has reiterated that the strength of Indian democracy lies in informed and willing participation of its citizens, not in enforced compliance. The issue of mandatory voting now remains firmly with the government and lawmakers to consider, if at all, through legislative debate and public consultation.

India's Highest Court Just Declined to Make Menstrual Leave the Law — Here Is Exactly Why

Today, March 13, 2026, a bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi declined to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a nationwide compulsory menstrual leave policy for women students and workers across India. The PIL was filed by advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi.

The court's reasoning was precise, pointed — and immediately controversial. Its core argument: making menstrual leave compulsory by law would cause employers to stop hiring women altogether, doing far more harm to women's professional lives than the biological reality it was trying to address.

What the Court Actually Said: Key Observations

"Voluntarily given is excellent. The moment you say it is compulsory in law, nobody will give them jobs. Nobody will take them in the judiciary or government jobs; their career will be over," CJI Surya Kant said during the hearing. News9live

"Creating awareness and sensitisation is different… but the moment you bring in a law mandating menstrual leave, nobody will hire them," the CJI added. "You don't know the mindset of employers. They will not hire women if we make such a law." Asianet Newsable

The bench went further, questioning the very framing of the PIL itself: "These pleas are made to create fear, to call women inferior, that menstruation is something bad happening to them. This is an affirmative right. But think about the employer who needs to give paid leave." LatestLY

The CJI warned of the most damaging possible outcome: employers telling women to "sit at home after informing everyone" — effectively using the mandated leave as a justification for discrimination in hiring. Deccan Chronicle

The bench also warned that a compulsory legal mandate could generate a psychological impression among working women themselves that they are seen as "less than" their male counterparts — reinforcing the very inferiority narrative the PIL was ostensibly fighting against. ThePrint

What the Petitioner Argued: The Case for Menstrual Leave

Senior advocate M.R. Shamshad, appearing for petitioner Tripathi, made a substantive case that the court's concerns, while valid, should not foreclose the conversation entirely.

He pointed out that while women are granted leave during pregnancy, there is no similar provision addressing the physical discomfort and health issues associated with menstruation — a disparity that affects women across all sectors of employment every single month of their working lives. The petition sought directions to the Centre and state governments to introduce at least two days of menstrual leave per month. Dainikjagranmpcg

Shamshad also cited the Government of Kerala's 2013 initiative granting menstrual leave to women students in state-run universities — introduced by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan as part of efforts to promote a more gender-just society — as evidence that the policy is workable in practice. He added that several private companies have voluntarily provided such leave without apparent damage to their hiring of women. ThePrint

How the Court Disposed of the Case

The bench disposed of the petition while noting that the petitioner had already made a representation to the competent authority — the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development. It directed the competent authority to examine the request and decide whether a policy framework on menstrual leave could be considered after consulting relevant stakeholders. Amar Ujala

The bench clarified that the issue involves policy decisions that fall within the government's domain rather than the judiciary's — meaning it is not for courts to mandate through judicial directions what Parliament and the executive should decide through legislation and policy. Wikipedia

This is not the first time the court has taken this position. In July 2024, a bench headed by then CJI D.Y. Chandrachud had also asked the Centre to examine the feasibility of a menstrual leave policy after consulting states and stakeholders — and similarly disposed of that petition by observing that mandating such leave through judicial directions could discourage employers from hiring women. The Free Press Journal

The Tension at the Heart of This Debate

Today's Supreme Court ruling captures a genuine dilemma that women's rights advocates, employers, and policymakers have wrestled with for years — not just in India but globally.

The case for compulsory menstrual leave rests on a simple, biological fact: menstruation causes real, often debilitating pain for a significant proportion of the women who experience it every month. Conditions like dysmenorrhea, endometriosis and PCOS — which remain dramatically underdiagnosed in India — can make working through the pain genuinely harmful. Refusing to acknowledge this in law means forcing women to choose between their health and their income every month.

The case against compulsory menstrual leave — as the Supreme Court articulated today — rests on an equally real social fact: India's employment market has not yet evolved to the point where employers will absorb an additional gendered cost without making hiring decisions that disadvantage women. The law would be well-intentioned but its consequences could structurally harm the very people it was designed to help.

The Supreme Court's separate January 2026 ruling recognised menstrual hygiene as an essential component of a girl child's right to life, dignity, health and education under Article 21 — directing governments to ensure free sanitary napkins, functional gender-segregated toilets in schools, and awareness campaigns. That ruling shows the court is not dismissive of menstrual health as a rights issue. Today's decision draws a careful line between recognising the right and choosing the mechanism through which it is enforced. ThePrint

What Should India Actually Do?

Today's ruling does not close the debate — it redirects it to where the court says it belongs: the government. Several constructive paths forward exist:

Voluntary industry frameworks — the court explicitly called voluntary menstrual leave policies "excellent." Industry bodies and corporate India can lead here without waiting for legislation, building a track record that demonstrates it does not harm hiring of women.

Awareness and medical support — subsidised access to gynaecological diagnosis and treatment for menstrual disorders, particularly in government and organised sector workplaces, would address the underlying health issue without creating a hiring disincentive.

Paid sick leave parity — strengthening existing paid sick leave entitlements and ensuring women can use them for menstrual health without stigma or documentation barriers may be a more employment-neutral path than a dedicated menstrual leave category.

State-level experimentation — Kerala's 2013 model and similar state-level voluntary frameworks provide evidence that can inform a national policy decision without imposing a top-down legislative mandate before that evidence is fully evaluated.

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court's ruling today is legally sound and practically grounded in the realities of India's employment market. But it is also a ruling that asks women to continue absorbing a biological cost — alone, silently, every month — because the society around them has not yet evolved enough to share it fairly.

The court is right that compulsory legislation carries unintended risks in an imperfect employer environment. But that environment will not improve on its own. Today's ruling makes the government's response — and the timeline of that response — the most important question left unanswered.

Can a Textbook Tell the Truth About Courts? NCERT's Judiciary Chapter Ban Is India's Most Uncomfortable Education Story of 2026

There is a chapter in a Class 8 social science textbook that says India's judiciary faces problems with corruption, a massive backlog of cases, and a shortage of judges.

Every single one of those statements is factually accurate. Every single one is publicly documented, officially acknowledged, and routinely discussed in parliamentary standing committees, Law Commission reports, and Supreme Court judgments themselves.

And yet, on February 26, 2026, India's Supreme Court imposed a blanket ban on the book containing that chapter. On March 11, 2026, the Court blacklisted the chapter's authors — permanently barring them from preparing any future textbooks. And three NCERT members have been ordered removed from the process of finalising future textbooks.

This is the story of a textbook, a chapter, a court's fury — and a question that India cannot afford to stop asking: in a democracy, who decides what children are allowed to learn about its institutions?

What the NCERT Textbook Actually Said

Before the outrage, the facts.

The National Council of Educational Research and Training recently introduced a Class 8 Social Science textbook titled Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Part II), as part of ongoing curriculum revisions. Chapter IV, titled "The Role of Judiciary in our Society," included a section discussing corruption in the judiciary — which triggered strong institutional objections. New Kerala

The social science textbook for Class 8 stated that corruption, a massive backlog of cases and the lack of an adequate number of judges are among the challenges faced by the judicial system. Business Today

These are not fabricated accusations. India's own Law Commission has documented the backlog of over 50 million pending cases across courts. The Supreme Court itself has repeatedly acknowledged the shortage of judges in High Courts. And corruption in the lower judiciary — not in the Supreme Court, but in district courts and subordinate courts — is a documented, empirically researched reality that the government's own reports do not deny.

The textbook was not saying the Supreme Court is corrupt. It was saying the judicial system — like every large institution in India — faces challenges. That is called civic education.

How the Supreme Court Responded — And What It Said

The Supreme Court on February 26, 2026 commenced suo motu proceedings over the contentious portion of the NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, registered the case titled "In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part 2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues." The court imposed a complete blanket ban on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the book. Asianet Newsable

The court also issued notices under the Contempt of Courts Act to the Department of School Education and the NCERT Director. Calling for a thorough inquiry into how the content came to be included, CJI Surya Kant said: "We would like to have a deeper probe. We need to find who is responsible and we will see who are there. Heads must roll! We will not close the case." Asianet Newsable

According to the bench, the wording of the disputed section did not appear to be a mere oversight and seemed to be a calculated move to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary. It added that if the act was found to be deliberate, it could amount to criminal contempt for "interfering with administration of justice besides scandalising the institution." Asianet Newsable

And on March 11, 2026 — today — the Court went further. The Supreme Court blacklisted the Class 8 judiciary chapter authors, saying the judiciary chapter authors can never prepare textbooks for the next generation. The Court also took serious exception to social media handles which posted irresponsibly after its previous order in the suo motu case. India TV News

Three NCERT members have been ordered removed from the process of finalising future textbooks — a sweeping institutional sanction that goes well beyond the specific chapter.

NCERT's Response — An Apology That Raised More Questions

The National Council of Educational Research and Training issued an unconditional apology over the Class 8 chapter on judiciary. The NCERT Director and members apologised for Chapter IV titled "The Role of Judiciary in our Society." The council said the entire textbook has been withdrawn and is no longer available. NCERT expressed regret for the inconvenience caused and reaffirmed its commitment to maintaining accuracy, sensitivity and responsibility in educational content. ANI News

Following Supreme Court's direction, NCERT issued an advisory asking anyone with copies of the banned Class 8 textbook to return it to the council headquarters. In a strongly worded advisory, NCERT also called for all social media posts that carry the chapter's content to be deleted. India TV News

The Union Ministry of Education wrote to the ministries of information and broadcasting, and electronics, asking them to stop the dissemination of the controversial textbook through digital platforms and electronic media. India TV News

Earlier, the Centre directed NCERT to review textbooks of all classes. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Supreme Court that a panel of domain experts will examine the curriculum — though the Supreme Court bench said it will appreciate if the Centre constitutes an expert committee to review curriculum instead of asking NCERT. India TV News

The apology was unconditional. The withdrawal was total. The government moved with extraordinary speed to comply with every court directive. But compliance is not the same as correctness.

The Tension Nobody Wants to Name

Here is the uncomfortable heart of this story — the part that is not in any official statement, any ministry press release, or any NCERT advisory.

The Supreme Court clarified that its proceedings were not intended to stifle legitimate critique. "We do not propose these proceedings to stifle any legitimate critique or exercise of the right to scrutinise judiciary. Our intervention is to uphold the integrity of education and ensure students are not exposed to biased narratives that misrepresent the role of judiciary," the bench said. Rewa Riyasat

That clarification is legally important. But in practice, the distinction between "legitimate critique" and "biased narrative" was made by the very institution being criticised — without any independent review, any academic hearing, or any process that involved the educational experts who wrote the chapter.

The episode highlights the delicate balance between academic freedom, pedagogical responsibility, and the dignity of constitutional institutions. The core challenge lies not in acknowledging institutional weaknesses, but in presenting them through age-appropriate, evidence-based, and constitutionally balanced framing. New Kerala

That is a fair and important point. Age-appropriate presentation matters. Framing matters. A Class 8 textbook should present institutional challenges carefully — not sensationally, not cynically, not in a way that destroys a child's faith in the systems meant to protect them.

But the question is: was this chapter doing that? Or was it simply acknowledging — factually, soberly — that India's courts face real challenges? Because those are two very different things. And banning a book, blacklisting its authors, removing NCERT members, and ordering physical copies returned to headquarters is a very extreme response to what may have been an imperfect but not dishonest chapter.

The Judicial Self-Criticism Question — A Historical Precedent Problem

Here is the irony that legal scholars across India are quietly noting today.

The Supreme Court of India — in its own judgments — has repeatedly, explicitly, and forcefully acknowledged the very problems the NCERT chapter described. In All India Judges Association vs Union of India, the Court itself noted the acute shortage of judges and the unsustainable backlog of cases. In multiple suo motu cases on prison reforms, the Court has documented systemic failures. In the National Judicial Appointments Commission case, the collegium system itself was defended partly on anti-corruption grounds.

The judiciary is not unaware that challenges exist. It has, on many occasions, been India's most vocal institution in demanding accountability within its own ranks.

What it appears to object to is not the truth of these challenges — but their presence in a school textbook, where young minds might form negative impressions of institutions they should, the Court appears to believe, regard with unambiguous respect.

That is a pedagogical philosophy. And it is one that reasonable people can debate. But it is not the same as the chapter being wrong.

What Academic Freedom Requires — And What India Is Risking

India's academic freedom ranking has been a subject of concern among global education monitors for several years. The NCERT textbook controversy — regardless of the specific merits of this chapter — sends a signal to curriculum designers, textbook authors, and education researchers across the country: write about institutions with caution, or face consequences.

Strengthening textbook review mechanisms with legal scrutiny and pedagogical oversight is essential for ensuring credible civic education. Inclusion of constitutional and legal experts in the review process for sensitive topics is strongly recommended. New Kerala

That recommendation is sound. A better process — one that involves legal experts, educationists, child psychologists, and constitutional scholars before publication — would have either caught a genuinely problematic framing or confirmed that the chapter was within the bounds of legitimate civic education.

What India got instead was a blanket ban, a contempt notice, blacklisted authors, and removed NCERT members — all decided by the institution that was the subject of the chapter in question, with no independent review mechanism in between.

That is a precedent that should make every educator in India uncomfortable.

What the Government Must Do — A Balanced Way Forward

The Supreme Court said it will appreciate if the Centre constitutes an expert committee to review curriculum instead of asking NCERT — signalling that it wants independent expertise, not just institutional compliance. India TV News

That suggestion is the most constructive thing to emerge from this entire controversy. India needs a National Curriculum Review Committee that is genuinely independent — staffed by educationists, constitutional scholars, child development experts, historians, and legal academics — with a clear mandate: to ensure that textbooks are factually accurate, age-appropriate, pedagogically sound, and constitutionally balanced.

Not bowdlerised. Not sanitised. Not scrubbed of every uncomfortable truth about India's institutions. But balanced, careful, and honest — which is what the best civic education always is.

A democracy is not protected by hiding its challenges from its children. It is protected by teaching its children to understand those challenges — and to become citizens capable of demanding better.

The Gunshot Was Not in the Textbook

The Supreme Court said a gunshot had been fired and the institution is bleeding. Business Today

That is powerful language. And it reflects genuine institutional pain — the sense that an institution that serves as the last resort for India's most vulnerable citizens, that has delivered some of the most transformative judgments in human rights history, that works under impossible conditions with inadequate resources, deserves better than to be reduced in a school textbook to a sentence about corruption.

That pain is understandable. The judiciary's frustration is legitimate.

But banning books, blacklisting authors, and removing officials is not how a democracy heals institutional wounds. It is how it creates new ones. The gunshot — if there was one — was not fired by a Class 8 textbook. It was fired by decades of institutional failure to address the very problems the textbook described.

Fix the backlog. Fill the judicial vacancies. Strengthen the accountability mechanisms. Build the trust.

And then, perhaps, the next textbook that mentions these challenges will feel less like an attack — and more like a report card that India is finally passing.

In a stern move today, the Supreme Court imposed a complete ban on the NCERT Class 8 Social Science textbook "Exploring Society: India and Beyond Part 2" due to its controversial chapter on judicial corruption. Chief Justice Surya Kant-led bench called it a "deep-rooted conspiracy" to defame the judiciary, ordering immediate seizure of all physical and digital copies. 

Court Slams NCERT, Demands Accountability

The three-judge bench, including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, took suo motu cognisance after media reports highlighted the chapter "The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society." CJI Surya Kant remarked, "Apology not enough…heads must roll," stressing a thorough probe into those behind the content. The court issued show-cause notices to NCERT Director Dr. Dinesh Prakash Sakhlani and the School Education Secretary, warning of contempt proceedings. 

CJI Kant criticized the textbook for omitting the judiciary's role in upholding constitutional values while focusing on issues like corruption, case backlogs (over 81,000 in Supreme Court, 6.24 million in High Courts), and judge shortages. He said exposing young students to "biased misconceptions" could erode public trust in the institution. 

Key Court Directives Issued

• Immediate Ban and Seizure: No printing, sale, or circulation allowed; NCERT Director and school principals personally responsible.
  
  

• No Teaching from Book: States must ensure compliance; reports due in two weeks.
  
  

• Unconditional Apology: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta called NCERT's initial apology insufficient; a full one must be published.
  
  

• Probe Ordered: Names of authors, syllabus meeting records demanded; guilty authors barred from future work.
  
  

The bench thanked media for flagging the issue, noting hundreds of public calls received.[ 

Government's Response and Book Details

Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan expressed regret, stating, "I am very sad... no intention to insult judiciary. Accountability will be fixed." NCERT halted distribution, apologized, and promised a rewritten chapter for 2026-27 session. Only a few of 2.38 lakh copies circulated. 

The chapter discussed corruption's impact on access to justice, judge codes, CPGRAMS complaints (1,600+ from 2017-2021), impeachment processes, and quoted former CJI BR Gavai on transparency. Critics argued it was lopsided, ignoring judicial achievements. 

Why This Matters Now

This controversy erupts amid NEP 2020 textbook revisions under NCF, aiming for civic literacy but sparking debates on content balance. With schools gearing for 2026-27, the ruling safeguards judicial dignity while highlighting curriculum oversight needs. Parents and educators await revised versions, underscoring education's role in nation-building. 

The hearing concluded with CJI emphasizing unity to protect judicial independence. Compliance reports will decide next steps in this high-stakes education-judiciary