4 min readApr 10, 2026 07:41 PM IST First published on: Apr 10, 2026 at 07:41 PM ISTWritten by Stuti WahalThe Supreme Court recently appointed a panel including a former attorney general and retired judges to review a controversial NCERT Class 8 textbook chapter. To meet the requirement for an eminent academician, a university vice-chancellor was added. While this is a distinguished group, its members may not be the best suited for the task.The chapter in question, which addressed judicial corruption and case backlogs, was withdrawn from the curriculum. Furthermore, its authors faced restrictions on future government-funded projects. Initiated by the Court on its own motion, the move was fueled by concerns that the material carried an agenda to diminish judicial authority. This highlights a central dilemma: Does a body trained in legal adjudication possess the pedagogical and child-psychology expertise required to evaluate a school textbook?AdvertisementThe core of this controversy is a dispute over pedagogy: What should a 13-year-old understand about India’s judiciary? Questions regarding age-appropriate tone, balanced examples, and necessary context fall under curriculum design and child psychology, not legal adjudication. However, the review panel lacks teachers or psychologists and instead consists of legal experts. While their contributions to law are significant, their expertise lies in interpreting statutes and weighing evidence, not in assessing a child’s cognitive readiness to learn about institutional challenges.Evaluating textbooks through a purely legal lens shifts the objective from quality education to reputational protection. The addition of a university vice-chancellor does little to fix this. A high-level administrator is not a substitute for a middle-school teacher. By prioritising prestigious job titles over actual classroom experience, the specific educational needs of young students are effectively ignored in the decision-making process.Also Read | Missing in NCERT textbook vs Court, a question: How do you talk about justice, corruption to a 13-year-old?Placing restrictions on the curriculum developers and authors without first giving them a formal hearing creates a significant gap in the legal process. A recognised benchmark of justice suggests that individuals should generally be granted an opportunity to share their perspective before decisions impacting their professional standing are finalised. This is rooted in the legal principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).AdvertisementThese principles of fairness are well-documented in legal scholarship. In his seminal work, the late Lord Bingham outlined these principles, suggesting that questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by the application of established law rather than broad discretion.Since this case involves public perceptions of the judiciary, a court-led panel creates an institutional overlap that threatens neutrality. Standard administrative practice requires reviewing bodies to be strictly independent of their subject matter to maintain public trust. Such independence is vital to prevent institutional conflicts and ensure a fair, objective evaluation.you may likeThere is no statutory requirement for the Supreme Court to appoint only retired judges to review panels. To ensure a multi-disciplinary approach, a committee could have been constituted with both educationists and child psychologists.This panel’s decision will likely set a template for future disputes about textbook content in India, making it a critical precedent. For a balanced evaluation of educational policy, the process must incorporate independent safeguards that ensure all perspectives are given equal weight, especially pedagogical ones. Resolving curriculum debates through a predominantly legal apparatus overlooks the sensitive, multi-disciplinary expertise required to understand student psychology and classroom learning. Striking this balance is not just about writing good textbooks, but also about respecting institutional boundaries. Ultimately, a clear separation of roles ensures that administrators administer, teachers teach and judges judge.Stuti Wahal teaches at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The views expressed by the writer are personal