Was the SC's move to 'ban' the NCERT textbook an instance of judicial censorship?

March 9, 2026·22 min·2 clips

Former Supreme Court Justice Abhay S. Oak discusses whether the court's ban on an NCERT textbook constitutes judicial censorship.

The episode is a focused interview with former Supreme Court Justice Abhay S. Oak on the NCERT Class 8 social science textbook controversy. Host Sharmada Venkatesubramanian asks Justice Oak to evaluate both the textbook's content and the Supreme Court's response. On the textbook's section on judicial pendency, Justice Oak says the data came from the National Judicial Data Grid and was accurate, but criticizes the chapter for omitting the causes of delays. He references a 2002 Supreme Court judgment that directed the judge-to-population ratio be raised to 50 per million within five years, yet 24 years later it stands at only 23 per million, and the governments responsible are not named in the textbook. He argues the chapter also failed to note that state governments are responsible for infrastructure and that the central government is the largest litigant in courts. On the corruption section, Justice Oak says he cannot deny there is some corruption in the judiciary but challenges whether 1,600 complaints over four years — during which hundreds of thousands of cases were decided — constitutes evidence of systemic corruption. He explains that existing mechanisms process every complaint, that 90% are found baseless, and that a judge issuing bold orders will naturally attract complaints. He is unequivocal that citizens have the right to criticize the judiciary but says the textbook should have presented complete, correct, and fair information and consulted retired judges or court registries before publication. On the Supreme Court's response, Justice Oak says initiating contempt action was justified but singles out three specific directions as excessive: the complete ban on the book, removal of digital copies, and the instruction to principals to seize copies from students. He cites a 1978 judgment by Justice Krishna Iyer quoting Lord Denning, which states that courts should not use contempt jurisdiction to suppress criticism or protect their own dignity. He differentiates between contempt action to protect the public interest — such as orders against illegal tree felling or unauthorized demolitions — versus action to protect the judiciary's institutional prestige, where restraint is warranted. He says after the government tendered an apology and the Solicitor General gave assurances, the Supreme Court should have left further action to the executive. On the question of whether NCERT can now use truth as a defense, Justice Oak says the institution cannot because it already expressed regret, but individual authors who receive contempt notices may still try to argue their factual basis in court. He closes by reiterating that courts must show broad shoulders in response to criticism, referencing the Arundhati Roy case, and says directly he would have shown restraint and not passed the ban order.

As heard by us

A steady discussion of the NCERT Class 8 controversy, free speech, and judicial accountability.

The episode treats the NCERT Class 8 textbook controversy as a serious constitutional question rather than a narrow school-content dispute. It keeps the focus on free speech and the child’s right to know, while also giving Justice Abhay S.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Need a calm read on the NCERT row and the court's role?

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from In Focus by The Hindu