2 min readUpdated: Feb 26, 2026 04:10 PM IST
In his first remarks after the Supreme Court imposed a “complete blanket ban” on the NCERT Class 8 social science textbook on “corruption in the judiciary”, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan said Thursday that he was “deeply saddened” by the episode.
Speaking to reporters in Jharkhand, Pradhan said when the matter of the book was brought to his notice, he directed the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) to withdraw the book.
‘No disrespect to judiciary’, I ‘directed NCERT to withdraw’ book: Pradhan
“We have utmost respect for the judiciary. What the judiciary has said… we will accept and comply with it. I am deeply saddened by what has happened, and I express my regret for it. When this matter was brought to my notice, I immediately directed NCERT to withdraw the books, so that they do not circulate further,” the minister said.
“There was no intention to disrespect the judiciary…the government did not have any such intention. We are taking this seriously, and this will be inquired into. Action will be taken against those who were involved in preparing this chapter. We would like to assure the judiciary that this mistake won’t be repeated,” he added.
Hearing the matter on Thursday, the Supreme Court termed NCERT’s decision to introduce the section on “corruption in the judiciary” a “calculated move to undermine and demean the dignity of the judiciary”.
The apex court also issued notices to the Secretary, School Education Department, Union Ministry of Education and the NCERT director, asking them to explain why proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act or other legal provisions should not be initiated against them.
In a statement issued late Wednesday, NCERT expressed regret for the “inclusion of inappropriate material” in the textbook and said these portions would be “rewritten”.
Story continues below this ad
The Council also said that the “error” was “purely unintentional”, it holds the judiciary in the “highest esteem”, and there was “no intent” to “diminish the authority of any constitutional body”.
