The Supreme Court of India has amended a previous judicial order concerning three academics associated with the drafting of a Class 8 NCERT textbook chapter on judicial corruption.

印度最高法院修改了先前一份關於三名參與編寫 NCERT 八年級教科書司法腐敗章節之學術人員的司法指令。

The judicial proceedings originated from a suo-motu action titled 'In Re: Social Science textbook for Grade-8 (part-2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues.' On February 26, the court imposed a comprehensive prohibition on the publication and dissemination of the textbook, asserting that the content sought to undermine institutional authority. This was followed by a March 11 order directing central and state authorities, as well as academic institutions, to disassociate from Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar. The court had previously characterized the inclusion of content regarding judicial corruption as a deliberate misrepresentation of facts intended to negatively influence students.

此司法程序源於一項名為「關於 NCERT 出版之八年級社會科學教科書（第二部分）及相關問題」的職權調查行動。2月26日，法院全面禁止出版與傳播該教科書，認定其內容企圖削弱制度權威。隨後於3月11日，法院發出指令，要求中央與地方當局以及學術機構與 Michel Danino 教授、Suparna Diwakar 及 Alok Prasanna Kumar 脫離關係。法院先前將納入司法腐敗內容之行為，定性為蓄意歪曲事實，旨在對學生產生負面影響。

Upon subsequent review, a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant accepted the applicants' contention that the textbook's preparation was a collective institutional effort rather than the result of individual volition. Consequently, the court recalled the adverse observations regarding the academics' intent and modified the March 11 directive. The court now stipulates that the decision to maintain or sever professional associations with the three individuals rests independently with the Union, states, and union territories, without prejudice from the court's prior mandates. Despite this modification, the Solicitor General noted that the Centre has proceeded with the decision to disassociate from the members, contesting the 'collective effort' narrative by stating the draft curriculum was not shared with the full National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC).

經過隨後審查，由印度首席大法官 Surya Kant 領導的法庭接納了申請人的主張，認為教科書的編寫是一項集體制度努力，而非個人意願的結果。因此，法院撤回了對相關學術人員意圖的負面評價，並修改了3月11日的指令。法院現規定，是否維持或切斷與該三人的專業關係，由聯邦、各邦及聯邦領地獨立決定，不受法院先前指令的影響。儘管有此修改，總長檢察官指出，中央政府已決定與相關成員脫離關係，並反駁「集體努力」之說法，聲稱課程草案並未與整個國家教學大綱及教學材料委員會（NSTC）共享。

Parallel to these proceedings, the Ministry of Education established an Oversight Committee, chaired by retired Justice Indu Malhotra, to revise the curriculum. Furthermore, the NSTC was reconstituted under the chairmanship of MC Pant. These developments occur amidst a broader institutional transition under Chief Justice Surya Kant, who has articulated a strategic roadmap emphasizing digital integration via the e-Courts Phase III project, the adoption of consensual dispute resolution mechanisms, and the pursuit of national procedural uniformity to mitigate systemic litigation bottlenecks.

在這些程序進行的同時，教育部成立了一個由退休法官 Indu Malhotra 主席領導的監督委員會以修訂課程。此外，NSTC 在 MC Pant 的主持下重新組建。這些發展正值首席大法官 Surya Kant 領導的更廣泛制度轉型期，他提出了戰略路線圖，強調透過 e-Courts 第三階段計畫實現數位整合、採用共識爭議解決機制，以及追求全國程序統一，以減輕系統性訴訟瓶頸。

The Supreme Court has removed its mandatory disassociation order against the three academics, delegating the final administrative decision to the respective government authorities.

最高法院撤銷了對該三名學術人員的強制脫離關係指令，將最終行政決定交由相關政府部門處理。