The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday (March 11) ordered the Union government and all state governments to sever official associations with three experts involved in preparing a chapter of a Class 8 social science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).
The chapter had drawn controversy for including references to “corruption in judiciary”.
The direction was issued by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi during the hearing of the matter.
During the proceedings, the court was informed that the disputed chapter had been prepared by a textbook development team headed by professor Michel Danino. The team also included members Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar, reported news agency PTI.
“At the outset, we have no reason to doubt that professor Michel Danion and his associates Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar either do not have reasonable informed knowledge with respect to Indian judiciary and/or they deliberately and knowingly misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of Indian judiciary before the students of class 8…,” the court said.
Following this observation, the bench directed the Union government, state governments and Union Territories, as well as universities and public institutions receiving government funding, to “disassociate three of them forthwith and not to assign any responsibility which incur fully or partially public funds”.
The court further instructed the Centre to set up a committee of subject experts within a week to review and finalise the legal studies curriculum for NCERT textbooks, not only for Class 8 but also for higher classes.
Earlier, on February 26, the apex court had imposed a complete ban on the Class 8 social science textbook containing the contentious chapter and issued show-cause notices to the secretary of school education in the Ministry of Education and the director of NCERT.
At that stage, the court had also indicated that it would examine whether further proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or other legal provisions were warranted if the publication was found to be an attempt to scandalise the judiciary.
The chapter had drawn controversy for including references to “corruption in judiciary”.
The direction was issued by a bench led by Chief Justice Surya Kant and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi during the hearing of the matter.
During the proceedings, the court was informed that the disputed chapter had been prepared by a textbook development team headed by professor Michel Danino. The team also included members Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar, reported news agency PTI.
“At the outset, we have no reason to doubt that professor Michel Danion and his associates Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar either do not have reasonable informed knowledge with respect to Indian judiciary and/or they deliberately and knowingly misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of Indian judiciary before the students of class 8…,” the court said.
Following this observation, the bench directed the Union government, state governments and Union Territories, as well as universities and public institutions receiving government funding, to “disassociate three of them forthwith and not to assign any responsibility which incur fully or partially public funds”.
The court further instructed the Centre to set up a committee of subject experts within a week to review and finalise the legal studies curriculum for NCERT textbooks, not only for Class 8 but also for higher classes.
Earlier, on February 26, the apex court had imposed a complete ban on the Class 8 social science textbook containing the contentious chapter and issued show-cause notices to the secretary of school education in the Ministry of Education and the director of NCERT.
At that stage, the court had also indicated that it would examine whether further proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or other legal provisions were warranted if the publication was found to be an attempt to scandalise the judiciary.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment