SC closes suo motu case over NCERT chapter on judiciary
The Supreme Court on Tuesday closed suo motu proceedings pertaining to the contents of the Class 8 NCERT textbook referring to corruption in the judiciary after it was informed that the chapter was withdrawn.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana took note that the controversial chapter has been replaced based on the revisions suggested by an expert panel constituted by the Centre. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the apex court that the textbooks with the new chapter are in circulation.
The top court also clarified that a statement recorded in its May 22 order, that the curriculum had not been placed before the committee at all levels and therefore could not be termed a collective decision, was only the submission of Solicitor General Mehta and was neither an observation nor an order of the court.
The Solicitor General clarified that he had not accused the academicians of not placing the curriculum before the committees.
“We never said that they had not placed it. I said factually that curriculum was not placed before the committee and therefore it was not a collective decision,” Mehta said.
The clarification came after senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for one of the academicians, submitted that the observations, if misconstrued as a judicial finding, will cause prejudice to them.
The bench was hearing a suo motu case concerning NCERT’s Class 8 social science book, which contained “offending” contents on corruption in the judiciary.
The top court had earlier modified its March 11 order that had directed the Centre, states and others to disassociate from three academicians following a row over the controversial chapter on corruption in the judiciary.
The apex court, which considered the explanation given by the three academicians, had left it open to the Centre, states, Union Territories, public universities and institutions that receive funds from the central or state governments to take an independent decision on the issue without being influenced by its observations made in the March 11 order.
It had also recalled a part of the March 11 order that had recorded that the three academicians -- Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar -- had “deliberately and knowingly” misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary to the students of Class 8. The bench passed the order while hearing an application filed by the three academicians, who explained their stand and said that no individual had the sole say in the drafting of the content and it was a collective process.
The court had also observed that its comments were made in the context of the contents and not the individuals.
On March 11, acting tough against the three experts involved in the drafting of the controversial chapter in the National Council of Educational Research and Training’s (NCERT) social science book for Class 8, the court had directed the Centre and all states to disassociate from them.
It had directed the Centre to form a committee of domain experts within a week for the purpose of finalising the curriculum of the NCERT’s legal studies for not only Class 8 but also higher classes.
On February 26, the apex court imposed a “blanket ban” on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of the NCERT’s Class 8 social science textbook that contained the “offending” contents on corruption in the judiciary, saying they have fired a gunshot and the judiciary is “bleeding”.
