Congress Leader Decries NCERT's Removal of ‘Secular’ Terminology as ‘Extreme Religious Fanaticism’

On Tuesday, the twenty‑second of June, 2026, in the capital city of New Delhi, senior Congress parliamentarian Dr. Aamir Khan publicly castigated the National Council of Educational Research and Training for excising the term ‘secular’ from a newly issued school textbook, describing the act as the manifestation of extreme religious fanaticism within the administrative apparatus. His denunciation, delivered amid a press conference convened by the Congress party’s Central Election Committee, was framed as a defence of the constitutional principle of secularism that, according to the legislator, has been systematically undermined by a series of textbook revisions championed by the present government.

The National Council of Educational Research and Training, an autonomous body subordinate to the Ministry of Education, announced in early June that the forthcoming revision of the Class X Social Studies textbook would omit the adjective ‘secular’ from the description of the Indian state, ostensibly to reflect a “neutral” representation of historical and contemporary governance structures, a justification that has provoked considerable consternation among scholars and civil society activists. According to the draft version released for limited review, the passage previously reading ‘India is a secular and democratic republic’ was altered to merely state ‘India is a democratic republic’, thereby erasing the constitutional commitment to religious neutrality from a textbook that reaches millions of students across the nation.

In response to the burgeoning controversy, the Ministry of Education issued a press release on June 24, asserting that the removal was the result of an extensive consultative process involving senior subject‑matter experts, state education boards, and representatives of the central board of secondary education, thereby implying that the decision was grounded in scholarly consensus rather than partisan zeal. A senior official, speaking on condition of anonymity, contended that the term ‘secular’ had been deemed redundant because the Constitution already enshrines secularism in its preamble, and therefore its explicit mention within the narrative of a social‑studies textbook was considered superfluous to the pedagogical objectives of fostering civic awareness.

Prominent educators and members of the National Law University, Delhi, submitted a memorandum to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Education, alleging that the alteration contravenes the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on the essential feature of secularism in the Indian polity and may constitute a violation of the Right to Education Act’s stipulation that educational material must not prejudice any particular faith. Simultaneously, several state governments, including those of Karnataka and West Bengal, expressed unease, with the Karnataka Education Minister warning that the removal could engender communal sensitivities among schoolchildren and undermine the long‑standing policy of maintaining a neutral civic curriculum.

Observers note that the episode exposes a recurrent pattern within the Indian educational bureaucracy wherein policy revisions are frequently initiated without transparent procedural safeguards, thereby allowing ideologically motivated actors to shape curricula under the veneer of academic normalcy, a circumstance that raises concerns regarding the robustness of statutory oversight mechanisms prescribed by the National Education Policy of 2020. The apparent disjunction between the Ministry’s claim of exhaustive expert consultation and the paucity of publicly disclosed deliberations, coupled with the rapid promulgation of the revised text ahead of the academic session, suggests a possible lacuna in the application of the procedural requirements enumerated in the Central Educational Institutions (Regulation) Act, thereby inviting scrutiny of administrative discretion exercised in the absence of meaningful parliamentary scrutiny.

Given that the Constitution enshrines secularism as a foundational value, one must inquire whether the administrative decision to excise the term from a textbook, ostensibly justified by redundancy, not only contravenes constitutional interpretation but also subverts the legislative intent embodied in the Constitution and the educational statutes that require preservation of secular principles within pedagogical content? Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the legislative oversight committees to examine whether the procedural opacity surrounding the consultation process, which appears to have been conducted behind closed doors and without the requisite publication of expert dissent, not only violates the transparency obligations stipulated under the Right to Information Act but also erodes the democratic accountability that is expected of a body entrusted with shaping the civic consciousness of future generations? Lastly, the divergent reactions from state education ministries, civil society, and legal scholars raise the spectre of a systemic fault line wherein the central authority’s unilateral curricular modifications may infringe upon the federal principle of cooperative federalism, thereby prompting the query as to whether existing constitutional safeguards are sufficient to prevent an over‑centralisation of educational policy that could impinge upon the rights of states to preserve their own pluralistic educational ethos?

In light of the Ministry’s assertion that the removal was predicated upon expert consensus, a critical examination is warranted as to whether the criteria for expert selection, the methodology of consensus measurement, and the transparency of dissenting opinions were delineated in a manner consistent with the procedural safeguards mandated by the National Educational Policy, thereby ensuring that academic freedom was not compromised by covert ideological influence? Moreover, the apparent disconnect between the central government's curricular directives and the constitutional guarantee of cooperative federalism obliges the Union to justify, under the framework of Article 246 of the Constitution, whether its unilateral imposition of content modifications respects the jurisdictional competencies of state education departments, and whether any remedial mechanisms exist to reconcile divergent regional pedagogical priorities with national policy objectives? Finally, the public outcry and legal challenges prompted by the removal raise the question of whether the existing judicial recourse, embodied in the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the judicial review powers under Article 32, is adequately equipped to compel the executive to produce substantive evidence of compliance with statutory duties, thereby safeguarding the citizenry’s right to an education untainted by sectarian bias?

Published: June 27, 2026