Quick Read
- The Supreme Court of India ordered institutions to cut ties with scholar Michel Danino over a controversial textbook chapter.
- The contested NCERT Class 8 chapter, ‘Corruption in the Judiciary,’ was criticized for potentially misrepresenting the judicial system.
- IIT Gandhinagar is currently reviewing Danino’s status as a guest professor following the court’s directive.
NEW DELHI (Azat TV) – The Supreme Court of India issued a directive on March 11, 2026, ordering the Union government, all state governments, and publicly funded institutions to immediately distance themselves from scholar Michel Danino and two other contributors involved in the creation of a controversial textbook chapter. The order follows a suo motu hearing regarding a section titled “Corruption in the Judiciary” in the newly published Class 8 Social Science textbook by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
Judicial Concerns Over Textbook Content
The bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, expressed deep concern that the content of the chapter could present a distorted or negative image of the judicial system to young students. During the proceedings, the court questioned whether the experts involved in drafting the material possessed an adequate understanding of the judiciary or if they had deliberately misrepresented facts. The Supreme Court stated there was no justification for associating individuals responsible for such content with the preparation of future curriculum or academic textbooks.
Institutional Fallout for Michel Danino
Following the court’s intervention, the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Gandhinagar has moved to review the status of Michel Danino, who has served as a guest professor at the institution since 2011. Officials confirmed that a standing committee will examine his appointment and his ongoing association with the institute. Danino, a French-born Indian scholar and Padma Shri awardee, has long been a prominent figure in discussions surrounding Indian civilisation and cultural history. However, his work has frequently attracted criticism from historians who argue that his interpretations of ancient Indian history introduce ideological bias into educational materials.
Broader Implications for Academic Contributors
The Supreme Court’s directive also extends to co-contributors Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta provided assurances to the court that the government would take appropriate action, including the formation of an expert committee to review the contested chapter. The ruling highlights a growing tension between academic freedom and the state’s role in ensuring the neutrality and accuracy of school-level educational content.
The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores a significant shift in oversight, signaling that the judiciary is prepared to directly intervene in the vetting process of educational materials to prevent the institutionalization of what it deems to be historically or procedurally inaccurate narratives.