The Supreme Court of India on Friday observed that textbooks prepared by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) are not an appropriate place for cartoons and directed that such content should be reviewed by a committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra.
The observations were made during a suo motu hearing conducted before a three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta raised concerns regarding the inclusion of cartoons and satirical illustrations in certain NCERT school textbooks.
While presenting arguments before the court, Tushar Mehta clarified that there was no objection to cartoons in general public life or media. However, he argued that their inclusion in school textbooks posed a different issue because such material would be viewed by children belonging to what he described as an “impressionable age group.”
According to the Solicitor General, textbooks are educational tools intended for structured learning, and he questioned whether satire, lampooning, or humorous caricatures should form part of educational material meant for school students. He specifically argued that a textbook may not be the proper place to use cartoons, especially when the content relates to sensitive public institutions or subjects.
Accepting the concerns raised during the hearing, the Supreme Court bench agreed that the broader issue surrounding the propriety and suitability of cartoons in NCERT textbooks deserved detailed examination. The court therefore directed that the matter be reviewed by a government-appointed committee headed by Justice Indu Malhotra.
The latest observations stand in contrast with certain earlier judicial remarks made by the Supreme Court regarding satire and freedom of expression. In previous rulings, the court had emphasised that satire should not be judged from the perspective of an overly sensitive or touchy individual but rather from the viewpoint of a reasonable person capable of appreciating humour and criticism in a balanced manner.
In its 2020 judgment in Indibily Creative Pvt Ltd v State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court had highlighted the importance of satire as a form of expression. The court had noted that satire possesses a unique ability to communicate ideas quickly, sharply, and effectively in ways that conventional forms of communication sometimes cannot achieve.
The court had also warned in that judgment that excessive restrictions on freedom of expression could damage public debate and weaken the democratic stability of society by discouraging criticism and open discussion.
Friday’s hearing formed part of continuing proceedings connected to an earlier controversy involving a Class 8 NCERT Social Science textbook. The dispute centred around portions of the book that discussed corruption within the judiciary under a chapter examining the role of courts in society.
Before making its observations regarding cartoons, the Supreme Court also revisited and modified some of its earlier remarks directed at three academicians associated with drafting the controversial chapter. The experts included Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwaka,r and Alok Prasanna Kumar.
Earlier, the court had censured the three academicians and directed the Central government, state governments, universities, etc.,s and educational institutions not to associate with them in any academic activity or educational engagement.
However, during Friday’s proceedings, the bench decided to partially modify its earlier March 11 order after considering explanations submitted by the authors. The court deleted the earlier direction that effectively barred educational institutions and governments from engaging the three experts in academic work.
In its revised order, the court stated that after examining the explanations provided by the applicants, it considered it appropriate to recall the earlier direction that required governments, universities, IEs, and educational institutions to disassociate themselves from the three academicians.
The controversy originally began in February after reports emerged concerning the NCERT textbook titled Exploring Society: India and Beyond for Class 8 students, particularly Volume 2 of the publication. Public attention focused on a chapter discussing the judiciary and references to corruption within judicial institutions.
The Supreme Court later took suo motu cognisance of the matter, expressing concern that the content could undermine the dignity and institutional credibility of the judiciary.
Following judicial scrutiny and criticism, NCERT issued an official press statement describing the inclusion of the disputed material as an “inadvertent error of judgment.” The organisation announced that the controversial content would be withdrawn and revised.
The Supreme Court subsequently ordered a blanket prohibition on the production and distribution of the textbook until the disputed sections were removed and corrected.
NCERT later formally withdrew the textbook and apologised for the contentious chapter. The education body also informed the court that the experts involved in drafting the material would no longer be associated with future curriculum development or textbook preparation processes, in line with earlier judicial directions issued during the case.
