Scholars write to President over NCERT book ban

AMid the on-going tilt o'er the now-withdrawn subject Council of Educational explore and Training (NCERT) Class 8 social science textbook featuring a chapter on the judiciary, more than 50 academicians and scholars have written to President Droupadi Murmu, alleging that the Supreme Court’s ban amounts to “judicial overreach” that “encroaches upon academic freedom”.In a letter dated April 7, the 51 signatories urged the President to intervene and ask the Union ministry of education to move the apex court to withdraw the ban and waive the “harsh punishment” imposed on Prof Michel Danino, noted educationist Suparna Diwakar and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar. They said the issue has the potential for “far-reaching consequences for Indian education”, flagging concerns over both the ban and the action taken against members of the Textbook Development Team (TDT).The signatories include academics from leading institutions such as Prof Amartya Dutta of the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Kolkata; Prof Anand Ranganathan of Jawaharlal Nehru University; Prof Anil Kumar Gourishetty of IIT Roorkee; Prof Arnab Bhattacharya of IIT Kanpur; Prof Chinmay Tumbe of IIM Ahmedabad; and Prof Kausik Gangopadhyay of IIM Kozhikode, among others. They also include scholars and citizens such as Dr Johnson Odakkal, Commodore (Retd), Indian Navy; Dr Ritendra Sharma, director, Centre for Indic Studies, Ahmedabad; and Raghava Krishna, founder, Brhat Educational Trust.The NCERT Class 8 social science textbook (Part 2), aligned with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCF-SE) 2023, was published on February 24. A chapter on the judiciary, particularly references to pendency and corruption, triggered the row. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognisance on February 26, termed the content “offending”, banned the book, and on March 11 directed governments and publicly funded institutions to disassociate from Danino, Kumar and Diwakar.Citing analyses by legal experts, the signatories said the order constitutes “judicial overreach”, arguing that a book can be banned only through law. They also pointed to a possible breach of “natural justice”, stating that the “harsh” punitive directions were issued without a hearing and could violate the individuals’ fundamental rights, including livelihood.They further said the ban has prevented teachers and experts from “objectively examining the contentious chapter” and has “stifled” public debate on challenges faced by the judiciary. The court, they argued, relied on “a couple of sentences” without a “dispassionate assessment” of the full chapter or curriculum, and ignored the mandate of new textbooks to promote “critical thinking”.The signatories suggested that the rest of the book could have been released without the contentious subsection, instead of imposing a blanket ban. They warned that judicial intervention in an “essentially educational matter” risks creating an “atmosphere of intimidation”.In their appeal, they urged the President to have the government seek withdrawal of the ban, allow publication without the disputed chapter, revoke action against the three individuals, and ensure broader academic representation in the review panel.