Published Mar 27, 2026 | 5:01 PM ⚊ Updated Mar 27, 2026 | 5:01 PM
Supreme Court of India. Credit: iStock
Synopsis: A law student at the Tamil Nadu National Law University has accused his university of trying to pressure him to take down an essay critical of the Supreme Court’s recent order banning an NCERT textbook that discussed corruption in the judiciary. He refused to remove the essay and accused the university of trying to censor him, but the university said it had only made a request in response to complaints.
In the last week of February, the Supreme Court issued a controversial directive banning a Class 8 NCERT civics textbook. It said a chapter on the judiciary was a “deep-rooted, well-orchestrated conspiracy” to malign the institution.
The chapter, “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society”, discussed corruption, among other things. “A complete blanket ban is hereby imposed on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the book,” the order said, adding it was “extremely contemptuous” and “reckless”.
Weeks later, on 12 March, a fifth-year student at the Tamil Nadu National Law University wrote a scathing critique of the order in an essay titled “The Supreme Court of India Has No Spine”.
“If the institution is so fragile that a book chapter can injure it, then the actual health of this institution is in dire condition. This is truly a watershed moment because the judiciary, for the second time in Indian history, decided that its institutional comfort mattered more than our constitutional rights,” he wrote.
The essay quickly drew national attention and was widely discussed online. Within days, Rishi’s university emailed him and asked him to take it down.
“…a spate of phone calls from Advocates of the Supreme Court and various High Courts as well as a few Judges and Students of Law complaining and criticising your article posted in Linkedin. The reputation of the institution is at stake. Therefore, I request you to take down the article immediately in the best interest of the university and yourself,” the email said.
Kumar refused and accused the university of issuing a “veiled threat” and trying to censor his right to express his opinion.
In his first essay, Kumar says the Supreme Court’s decision to ban the chapter—which briefly mentioned judicial backlog and corruption—was unconstitutional and disproportionate.
He pointed out that the 18-page chapter largely praised the judiciary. It highlighted landmark judgments, judicial reforms, and the institution’s role as the “watchdog of democracy”. The reference to corruption, he said, was limited to a short section of roughly 350 words, including a quote from a former Chief Justice acknowledging instances of misconduct.
Kumar said the Court’s response—ordering seizure of physical copies, removal of digital versions, and prohibiting further publication—amounted to prior restraint on speech. Such restrictions, he explained, must be imposed through law under Article 19(2) of the Constitution, not through judicial order alone.
He also criticised the 11 March order that barred the textbook’s authors, Prof. Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar, from participating in publicly funded curriculum work. This, he said, amounted to punishment without due process because the authors were penalised before any hearing.
Calling the move akin to a “judicial bill of attainder”, he said the Court had imposed sanctions without statutory backing. This raised concerns about separation of powers and procedural fairness.
The article also asked why contempt proceedings were not invoked if the Court believed the content was defamatory. He said the absence of such proceedings may mean the material did not meet the legal threshold for contempt.
Beyond the legal arguments, Kumar’s piece examined what he called “institutional dishonesty”. He said the Court misrepresented the textbook’s content while ignoring its overwhelmingly positive portrayal of the judiciary.
He also criticised sections of the Bar, saying senior advocates had brought the issue to the Court’s attention without fully engaging with the text. In addition, he questioned the Union government’s response, arguing that its swift compliance prioritised institutional deference over constitutional principles.
Days later, on 22 March, Kumar wrote a follow-up essay where he shared what he said were attempts by his university to get him to take down his first essay.
“Judges and advocates… found my personal details, found the university I study in, got the contact details of authorities there, picked up their phones and called them to pressure me into silence,” he wrote.
Speaking to South First, Kumar reaffirmed his position: “I have written what I have written in those two blogs. I stand by that.”
The Registrar of University, speaking to South First, said:
“Over the past week, a few lawyers from states including Telangana, Maharashtra, and Delhi contacted me and raised complaints regarding the article written by the student. I conveyed this to the student for information. However, the student stated that he had written it as part of his rights and that he would not remove it. We also stand by his right to express his views. No action has been taken against him, nor is there any need for such action. He has merely expressed his opinion, and we stand by him.”
