The Supreme Court on Friday recalled portions of its earlier order that had censured three academics associated with drafting a controversial National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) Class VIII textbook chapter on the judiciary and corruption.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi modified its March 11 order and withdrew the direction that had asked the Union government, State governments, universities and educational institutions to disassociate themselves from Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar in all academic activities.
The Court clarified that while it continued to hold the contents of the chapter to be inappropriate and unbalanced, the explanation furnished by the three authors warranted reconsideration of the earlier directions issued against them. The Bench observed that remedial measures had already been initiated by the Union government through the constitution of an expert committee to review and revise the curriculum relating to the judiciary.
It further clarified that its earlier observation suggesting that the three experts had deliberately or knowingly misrepresented facts was also recalled in light of the explanations placed before it.
At the same time, the Bench left it open to the Union government, State governments and other competent authorities to independently decide whether to engage the three academics in future academic assignments, without being influenced by the observations contained in the March 11 order.
The controversy arose earlier this year after concerns were raised regarding portions of the NCERT Class VIII textbook titled “Exploring Society: India and Beyond,” particularly a chapter dealing with the judiciary and corruption. The Apex Court had taken suo motu cognisance of media reports relating to the textbook and observed that the contents failed to present a balanced understanding of the constitutional role of the judiciary and undermined institutional dignity.
Following the initiation of proceedings, NCERT issued a public statement acknowledging an error of judgment in the drafting of the chapter and informed the Court that the disputed portions would be withdrawn and revised after fresh consultation.
On February 26, the Supreme Court had restrained further production and circulation of the textbook. NCERT subsequently withdrew the publication from circulation and informed the Court that the chapter had been drafted by Professor Michel Danino with assistance from Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar.
In its March 11 order, the Court had directed that the three experts should not be associated with curriculum development or textbook finalisation processes in India. It had also directed the constitution of a committee of domain experts, preferably including a former judge, an academics and a legal practitioner, to review the curriculum relating to legal education and constitutional studies.
Pursuant to the directions, a three-member expert committee comprising former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal and Professor Prakash Singh, Vice-Chancellor of Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, was constituted to examine and finalise the legal studies curriculum in coordination with the National Judicial Academy, Bhopal.
During the hearing on Friday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, submitted that the government did not intend to associate with the experts involved in drafting the disputed chapter. He also referred to concerns regarding similar content in other NCERT textbooks, including the use of cartoons in legal and constitutional subjects for school students.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Professor Danino, argued that the earlier directions had been passed without granting the experts an opportunity of hearing and had serious professional consequences. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Alok Prasanna Kumar, submitted that there was no deliberate or malicious intent behind the drafting of the chapter and contended that the controversy had escalated following media reporting of isolated extracts.
The Bench observed during the hearing that its concern was not whether the textbook portrayed the judiciary positively or negatively, but whether the material presented a balanced and constitutionally informed perspective. The Court noted that the chapter focused disproportionately on allegations of corruption while failing to adequately discuss constitutional supremacy, access to justice, legal aid and the broader institutional role of the judiciary.
The post NCERT judiciary chapter row: Supreme Court recalls order blacklisting academics appeared first on India Legal.