The Supreme Court of India on Friday modified its earlier March 11 order that had directed the Central government, state governments, and various educational institutions to disassociate themselves from three academicians linked to a controversial NCERT Class 8 textbook chapter dealing with corruption in the judiciary.
The revised order came after the court considered explanations submitted by the three academicians — Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwaka,r and Alok Prasanna Kumar — who had been associated with the drafting of the disputed chapter in the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) Class 8 social science textbook.
A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi stated that governments, Union Territories, public universities, es and educational institutions receiving state or central funding should now independently decide whether they wish to associate with the three academicians in the future, without being influenced by the court’s earlier observations issued in the March 11 order.
The apex court also recalled a portion of its previous order in which it had recorded that the three academicians had “deliberately and knowingly” misrepresented facts in a manner that projected a negative image of the Indian judiciary before Class 8 students.
The modification was made while hearing an application submitted by the three experts, who explained before the court that the drafting of textbook content was a collective process involving multiple contributors and that no single individual exercised complete authority over the final material included in the chapter.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court clarified that its earlier observations had been directed primarily at the contents of the chapter itself and not personally against the individuals involved in preparing the educational material.
Earlier, on March 11, the court had taken a strict stand regarding the controversial chapter and had directed the Central government as well as all state governments to disassociate themselves from the three academicians because of their involvement in drafting the disputed section of the NCERT social science textbook.
At that time, the court had also instructed the Centre to establish a committee of subject experts within one week for the purpose of reviewing and finalising legal studies curriculum material not only for Class 8 but also for higher classes.
The case was being heard by the court under a suo motu proceeding titled In Re: Social Science Textbook for Grade-8 (Part-2) Published by NCERT and Ancillary Issues. The court had initiated the matter on its own following controversy surrounding the textbook chapter.
Earlier proceedings had informed the court that the chapter in question was prepared by a textbook development team functioning under the chairmanship of Michel Danino and included contributions from Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar.
During Friday’s hearing, the bench reiterated that the contents considered objectionable in the chapter were “wholly undesirable.” The court expressed concern that the chapter appeared to single out corruption as a problem uniquely associated with the judiciary.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Centre, informed the court that the government had independently decided not to associate with the three academicians in future educational work.
The Solicitor General also raised another concern before the bench regarding the inclusion of a cartoon in a separate textbook, arguing that such material may not be appropriate for students belonging to an impressionable age group.
Responding to this issue, the bench stated that the matter could be referred to a committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra for examination and review.
Last month, the Centre had informed the court that a review committee had already been constituted, ted comprising Justice Indu Malhotra, former Attorney General and senior advocate KK Venugopal, and Professor Prakash Singh, Vice Chancellor of Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University. The committee was tasked with reviewing the contents of the revised chapter.
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Michel Danino, referred to the application submitted by the academicians and requested the bench to remove or soften the adverse remarks recorded against them in the earlier March 11 order.
The bench acknowledged during the hearing that there was no reason to doubt the long academic careers and contributions of the three experts involved in the case.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the academicians, argued that observations made by the Supreme Court carry enormous influence across the country and can significantly affect reputations and professional standing.
He further stated that there had been no malicious intent behind the drafting of the chapter and that the experts had not acted with the intention of undermining the judiciary.
While discussing the controversial chapter, the bench again noted that the contents appeared to portray corruption as a problem specifically unique to the judiciary. However, the judges reassured the academicians that the criticism was directed at the contents rather than at them personally.
The controversy surrounding the NCERT textbook first intensified on February 26, when the Supreme Court imposed what it described as a “blanket ban” on further publication, reprinting, or digital dissemination of the Class 8 social science textbook containing the disputed references to corruption in the judiciary.
At that stage, the court had made strong remarks, stating that the controversial contents had effectively “fired a gunshot” at the judiciary and that the institution was “bleeding” because of the manner in which it had been portrayed in the textbook.
