On March 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India barred three academics who had drafted a controversial textbook chapter from any future publicly funded curriculum development. One of the scholars, Michel Danino, a guest professor in the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences at IIT Gandhinagar, was also dismissed from his faculty position.
The three academics had worked with the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to develop the textbook. In addition to Danino, who chaired NCERT’s curricular area group for social sciences, the other scholars affected included Alok Prasanna Kumar, a legal expert on the Indian Constitution and democratic institutions; and Suparna Diwakar, a curriculum development professional and research scholar in Regenerative Development at RV University.
The controversial chapter had been included in a middle-grade social science textbook and referenced “corruption in the judiciary.” On February 26, 2026, the Supreme Court banned the textbook, halting its publication, reprinting, and digital dissemination. Soon after, on March 11, the Court imposed a “life ban” on the three academics who worked on the book, holding them responsible for “projecting a negative image of [the] judiciary.” The ban ordered national and state governments to dissociate the scholars and bar them from any future publicly funded curriculum development.
The academics filed applications seeking recall of the order. On May 22, 2026, the Supreme Court modified its stance to allow states, territories, public universities, and other institutions to take an “independent decision” about whether Danino, Kumar, or Diwakar could be involved in future curriculum development efforts. The Court expressed its satisfaction with the explanation that there was no malice in preparing the chapter and expunged the claim that the academics “deliberately and knowingly” misrepresented facts to “project a negative image of the Indian Judiciary to students of Class 8.”
Scholars at Risk is concerned about state officials blacklisting scholars, apparently in retaliation for their development of nonviolent academic content, and about a university dismissing a scholar for the same reason. Government and university leaders have a responsibility to protect academic freedom; to refrain from disciplinary actions that punish, restrict, or chill academic expression. Moreover, higher education officials should resist outside interference into the content of teaching and research. Such actions undermine academic freedom, university autonomy, and democratic society generally.
Sources:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c627l7zexr8o
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sc-imposes-life-ban-on-three-academics-for-corruption-chapter-seeks-action-on-posts/articleshow/129478790.cms
https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-ncert-textbook-row-blacklisting-academics
https://thewire.in/law/sc-directs-union-govt-states-to-disassociate-with-experts-behind-controversial-chapter-in-ncert-textbook
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ncert-book-row-sc-wants-centre-states-disassociate-10576984/
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/didnt-expect-row-over-chapter-on-judiciary-content-was-correct-we-stand-by-it-ncert-scholar-danino-4019015
https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/ncert-judiciary-chapter-row-michel-danino-says-supreme-court-orders-may-chill-textbook-writing-2918584-2026-05-28
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ncert-threw-us-under-the-buswe-should-not-be-afraid-of-controversies-academic-michel-danino-speaks-after-sc-recalls-order-10709590/