New Delhi, 26 Feb

Observing that there appeared to be a "well orchestrated conspiracy" to defame the judiciary, the Supreme Court on Thursday imposed a "complete blanket ban" on the Class 8 NCERT book with a chapter on ‘corruption in the judiciary’ and ordered that all copies, physical and digital, be seized.

"They have fired the gunshot. The judiciary is bleeding," a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant said, a day after the National Council of Educational Research & Training apologised for "inappropriate content" in the social science textbook and said it would be rewritten in consultation with appropriate authorities.

The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, issued show cause notices to the NCERT director and the secretary of the department of school education and asked them to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against those responsible.

Referring to the NCERT's communication on Wednesday, the CJI said, "That itself shows deep-rooted conspiracy... a well-orchestrated conspiracy".

In its stern comments, the bench added that there seemed to be a "calculated move" to undermine the institution and demean the dignity of judiciary. It warned of serious action if its directions are defied in any manner.

Referring to the contents of the book, the bench observed that such misconduct, having everlasting impact on the judiciary, would fall within the definition of criminal contempt. This would erode people's faith in the judiciary if allowed to go unchecked, the apex court said.

"It is my duty as the head of the institution to find out who is responsible; heads must roll," the CJI said, adding, "We would like to have a deeper probe."

The bench then directed that the NCERT, in coordination with the education departments of the Centre and states, ensure that all copies of the book, either hard or soft copy, are removed from public access.

"As an abundant precaution, a complete blanket ban is imposed on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the book," the bench said.

It said any attempt to distribute the book, either physically or digitally, shall be taken as a willful defiance of the court's order.

A section titled "Corruption in the Judiciary" in the new textbook says corruption, a massive backlog of cases, and the lack of an adequate number of judges are among the challenges faced by the judicial system. It also states that judges are bound by a code of conduct that governs not only their behaviour in court, but also how they conduct themselves outside it.

The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the matter on Wednesday.

On Thursday, it made clear that the proceedings were not meant to stifle any legitimate criticism or the exercise of right to scrutinise the judiciary.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta tendered anunconditional and unqualified apology on behalf of the Ministry of Education.

The CJI, however, was unconvinced. He said there was not a single word of apology in the NCERT's communication and it instead tried to justify the chapter.

The bench observed it seemed that the choice of words and expressions in the book cannot be said to be an inadvertent or bonafide error. The top court observed it was fundamentally improper to expose students to "biased narrative" at this age which might lead to fundamental misconceptions.

The bench posted the matter for further hearing on 11 March.

The CJI on Wednesday said nobody on earth would be allowed to defame the judiciary and taint its integrity.

"At any cost, I will not permit it. Howsoever high it may be, the law will take its course. I know how to deal with it," a visibly irked CJI had said after senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi mentioned the matter.

The council, responsible for school education curriculum, put on hold the circulation of the textbook hours after it took the book off its website on Wednesday. It said it "holds the judiciary in highest esteem and considers it to be the upholder of the Indian Constitution and protector of fundamental rights" and termed the error purely unintentional.