The Supreme Court has closed its suo motu proceedings concerning a controversial passage in a now-recalled Class 8 Social Science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), which referred to “corruption in the judiciary”.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana briefly heard the matter and clarified that certain statements recorded in an earlier order were submissions made by the parties and not findings or observations of the Court. The proceedings were thereafter formally disposed of.
The controversy arose in February after reports highlighted a section in the NCERT textbook Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Class 8, Vol. 2), in a chapter titled “The Role of the Judiciary in Our Society”. The chapter identified “corruption at various levels of the judiciary” and the substantial backlog of cases, attributed to factors including inadequate judicial strength, complex legal procedures and poor infrastructure, among the challenges facing the judicial system.
The Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the issue, observing that the contents were capable of undermining the dignity of the judiciary. NCERT described the inclusion as an inadvertent error of judgment and announced that the portion would be withdrawn.
On February 26, the Court had imposed a blanket restriction on the production and distribution of the textbook. The book was subsequently withdrawn from the market and NCERT issued an apology.
The proceedings later focused on the three academicians involved in drafting the chapter, Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar. In an order dated March 11, the Court had directed the Centre, States, universities and educational institutions to disassociate themselves from the three experts.
The academicians challenged the direction, contending that they had effectively been blacklisted without being given an opportunity to defend themselves. The Court subsequently recalled the direction. The Court also recalled an observation concerning an alleged deliberate misrepresentation of facts by the three experts in the chapter. That observation was contained in the May 22 order.
During Tuesday’s hearing, Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for the academicians, sought a further clarification regarding the May 22 order. He referred to a submission by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta that the curriculum prepared by the three academicians could not be regarded as a collective decision of NCERT as it had not been placed before the requisite committees.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar submitted that the academicians had followed prescribed procedures by forwarding the curriculum to the appropriate committees. Clarifying the process, he stated that textbooks must undergo review by two committees, comprising 44 and eight members, respectively and affirmed that proof of submission could be provided.
He said the clarification was necessary because the May 22 order, if read without the academicians’ response, could later be relied upon to suggest that they had acted negligently.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that he had not alleged a failure on the part of the academicians to submit the curriculum. He explained that his submission was strictly factual, that the curriculum had not been placed before the committee, and consequently, the decision could not be deemed collective.
The Bench thereafter clarified the position expressly, stating that the statements referred to by Datar were only submissions made on behalf of NCERT and did not constitute findings of the Court.
With the clarification, the Supreme Court disposed of the main suo motu case and all proceedings arising from it.
The post NCERT textbook row: Supreme Court clarifies remarks on academicians, recalls earlier adverse observations, closes suo motu case appeared first on India Legal.