NGO takes Balbharti to court over inferior textbook paper

A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court, challenging the Maharashtra State Bureau of Textbook Production and Curriculum Research (Balbharti) over a significant reduction in the quality of paper specified for its school textbooks. The Sankalp Jeevan Charitable Trust, the NGO behind the suit, alleges that a new tender issued on 30 September 2025 for the 2026–27 academic year represents a “drastic dilution” of long-established quality parameters. 

The petition, filed through Dhaval Vussonji and Associates, names the State of Maharashtra and Balbharti as respondents and argues that the move violates children’s fundamental right to education and health under Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitution by supplying inferior learning materials.

An analysis of the tender reveals specific reductions for the 70 GSM cream wove paper commonly used in textbooks. Key parameters have been lowered across the board: the brightness index has been reduced from 85% to 78%, the tensile strength has been cut by 30%, and opacity has been reduced by 7%. Industry experts warn this will result in paper that is 20% less smooth and 20-25% less durable, increasing the likelihood of tearing and compromising long-term readability.

In response to the controversy, Balbharti director Anuradha Oak has been quoted in press reports stating the move is an attempt to "standardise" paper quality. "Some of the parameters from last year were higher; this year, we have standardised the paper's quality. Overall, we are compliant with the Bureau of Indian Standards benchmark," she said.

However, this justification has been met with scepticism. Paper traders told PrintWeek that the new specifications would make Maharashtra's textbooks among the lowest-quality in the country.

Anand Limaye, a master printer and former president of the Mumbai Mudrak Sangh, suggested that cost pressure is the primary driver. "The core issue is that Balbharti wants to maintain the price of textbooks without increasing it, so they are cutting production costs by reducing paper quality," he said.

While Balbharti might argue that lighter paper makes books easier to carry, Limaye countered this point directly. "If the weight of the school bag was such a concern, why was 100 GSM paper used for so many years? And who took this technical decision now?" he questioned. He also urged a deeper investigation into the tender process itself, noting, "The NGO should find out the root cause of this decision. Why have the eligibility norms for paper suppliers also been relaxed? This could further destabilise the paper supply chain."

Limaye also pointed to a broader economic pressure: the recent increase in Goods and Services Tax (GST) on paper from 12% to 18%. "Since publishers cannot claim a full set-off for this, the additional 6% becomes an absorbed cost, ultimately passed on to the common man and their children," he explained. He also highlighted a "curious anomaly" in the tax structure, stating, "Notebook paper is charged 5% GST, while textbook paper is charged 18%. This disparity could incentivise 'cash business' and warrants proper consideration."

With the court petition now filed, the debate over the quality of Maharashtra's textbooks moves from the pressroom to the courtroom, placing Balbharti's cost-cutting measures under formal legal scrutiny.