School Textbooks as ‘Free Speech’: Banning and legal principles
From courtroom to classroom, the debate over a banned NCERT textbook raises urgent questions about the constitutional limits of banning school textbooks, and the tension between judicial authority, pedagogical autonomy, and the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a).
Published on: 3 March 2026, 02:50 pm
“Don’t join the book burners. Don’t think you are going to conceal faults by concealing evidence they ever existed. Don’t be afraid to go in your library and read every book.”
– Dwight D. Eisenhower, 34th President of the United States (1953-1961)
The history of banning books and regulating their content as ‘speech’ after the promulgation of Constitution of India, 1950 has been one of disappointment and of constitutional confusion, if not chaos. Having adopted and incorporated one of the leaves of First Amendment to the US Constitution, the cherished rights under Article 19(1)(a) of the newly promulgated Constitution was a profound moment. The provision has been the subject matter of interpretation in more than hundreds of cases by the Supreme Court of India. However, the common thread which runs through these dictums is of ‘judicial convenience’ rather than principle. These precedents cause more confusion than an exercise of constitutional interpretation.
The controversy
The recent judicial ban on the NCERT textbook and its content which was duly approved by the regulatory body and publisher as part of the school curriculum is unique and first of its kind. On 23 February, 2026, the NCERT’s new social science book introduced a chapter on the ‘Judiciary in India’ as part of its ongoing new pedagogical reform for Class VIII students. It highlighted the pendency of cases, judicial backlog, and judicial corruption – as some of the problems being faced by the Indian judicial system.
The sub-topic ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’ caught the attention of the Supreme Court as well as some members of the Bar. The Court through its administrative apparatus sought to verify the content of the said textbook and sought an explanation from the director of the NCERT. The said explanation has been referred to and dealt with briefly by the Court in its order.
Supreme Court’s February 26 order
The Court took cognizance of the issue, i.e. In re: Social Science Textbook For Grade -8 (Part -2) published by NCERT and Ancillary issues on February 26 and passed an immediate order directing to withdraw and remove the book (physical or digital) from public access, and to seize all the copies without further delay. Finally, it banned the said book from public access.
The draconian order/direction(s) as passed by the Court is sought to be justified in the name of (a) institutional autonomy while functioning in concert to preserve the democratic fabric of nation (b) separation of power (c) pedagogical suitability on inclusion of sub-topics like ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’ (d) the underlying agenda to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of judiciary (e) the impact and impression which would be casted on the minds of the youth (f) to safeguard the pedagogical integrity of the national curriculum.
The order further attributes fault to the author and to NCERT, as publisher, for allegedly failing to acknowledge the judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional morality and safeguarding the basic structure doctrine; for omitting what it describes as the judiciary’s substantive contributions to preserving the democratic fabric; and for not highlighting the transformative initiatives undertaken by the Supreme Court in expanding legal aid and strengthening access to justice.