SC Mandates Expert Panel for NCERT Legal Studies

Centre Ordered to Disassociate Controversial Authors from Curriculum Development

by The_unmuteenglish

New Delhi, March 11: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Union Government to establish a committee of domain experts within one week to finalize the legal studies curriculum for NCERT textbooks. The bench, led by Chief Justice Surya Kant, clarified that while the judiciary remains open to objective criticism, the current measures were necessary to address specific “offending” content regarding judicial corruption in the Class 8 social science syllabus.

As part of the directive, the apex court ordered the Centre, states, and universities to immediately disassociate from the three experts responsible for drafting the disputed chapter. The individuals named include Professor Michel Danino, who chaired the development team, along with members Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar. The bench, which also included Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, stated that these experts may approach the court if they seek a modification of this order.

The court outlined that the new expert panel must consist of a former judge, a renowned law practitioner, and an academician. Furthermore, the bench instructed the Centre to involve the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal to ensure the curriculum meets appropriate standards. During the proceedings, the court noted that a centralized expert review would be more effective than a standard internal review by the NCERT.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the government has already initiated systemic changes and issued an unconditional apology via the NCERT director. Mehta maintained that no further materials would be published without being vetted by domain experts. This follows a previous “complete blanket ban” imposed by the court on February 26, which halted the publication and digital dissemination of the textbook after the bench declared the content a “calculated move” to undermine the dignity of the judicial institution.

Related Articles