Supreme Court Dismisses Petition to Delete NCERT Class‑8 Remark on Slum‑Dweller Verdicts

Overview The Supreme Court refused to entertain a petition that demanded the deletion of a statement in an old NCERT Class‑8 Social Science textbook which said that recent judgments tend to treat slum‑dwellers as encroachers. The bench, comprising CJI Surya Kant , Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, held that expressing a viewpoint on a judgment is a legitimate form of criticism and not contempt of court. Key Developments The petition, filed under Article 32 , sought the withdrawal, correction and review of the contested textbook passage. The Court observed that perceptions about a judgment can be right or wrong, but the judiciary cannot police the opinions of an uninformed reader, as emphasized by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta . The bench noted that the textbook in question belonged to the 2015‑16 edition, rendering the petition infructuous and leading to its dismissal. The Union was directed to furnish details of an expert committee intended to review the controversial chapter on judicial corruption. Important Facts The impugned line appeared on page 62 of NCERT 's textbook titled Social and Political Life – III (Class 8, 2015‑16 edition). The excerpt was placed under the chapter discussing the role of the judiciary and the right to livelihood, linking judicial pronouncements to the concept of encroachment by slum‑dwelling communities. The petitioner, a former NCERT member, argued that the passage was “divorced from its constitutional, statutory and factual framework” and could undermine the dignity of the judiciary. Reliefs sought included constitutional scrutiny of the content, production of drafting records, withdrawal of the passage, and invocation of Article 129 to prevent scandalising publications. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several GS topics: the independence and accountability of the judiciary (GS2), the role of educational bodies like NCERT in shaping civic awareness, and the constitutional mechanisms (Articles 32 and 129) that protect fundamental rights and maintain the sanctity of courts. Aspirants should note how the Supreme Court balances freedom of expression with institutional dignity, a recurring theme in ethics and governance questions. Way Forward While the specific textbook edition is obsolete, the episode underscores the need for: Robust, constitutionally‑compliant review processes for school curricula, especially on sensitive topics like judicial conduct. Clear guidelines distinguishing legitimate criticism from contempt, aiding teachers, students and publishers. Continued vigilance by civil society and the judiciary to ensure that educational content fosters informed debate without compromising institutional respect. These steps will help align pedagogical material with constitutional values and prepare future citizens for nuanced civic participation.