Supreme Court removes ban on 3 authors who wrote NCERT Judiciary chapter

The Supreme Court lifted its ban on three academics linked to the NCERT judiciary chapter and deleted adverse remarks against them. The order leaves future association decisions to governments while concerns over the textbook may go to an expert panel.

In Short

• Bench accepted the chapter was collectively prepared without malicious intent
• Governments may independently decide future roles of the three scholars
• Court had earlier called the judiciary content wholly undesirable and removed texts

The Supreme Court has lifted a ban on three academics associated with a controversial NCERT Class 8 chapter on corruption in the judiciary from participating in academic projects linked to public educational institutions.

The court also deleted its earlier observation that the academics had “deliberately and knowingly” misrepresented facts to create a negative image of the judiciary before school students.

A bench led by Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, passed the order while hearing applications filed by Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar.

WHAT THE COURT SAID

While the bench maintained that the textbook chapter was “wholly undesirable”, it accepted the academics’ explanation that the content was prepared collectively and without malicious intent.

The court clarified that the Union government and state authorities are free to independently decide whether to associate the three academics with future academic projects, without being influenced by the earlier observations.

The matter relates to a suo motu case concerning an NCERT Class 8 social science chapter discussing corruption in the judiciary and judicial delays. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court had ordered the removal of the chapter and imposed a complete ban on the textbooks containing it.

INSIDE THE COURTROOM DRAMA

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Michel Danino, argued that the March 11 order was passed without hearing the academics and stressed that the chapter was not authored individually.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Alok Prasanna Kumar, defended the inclusion of discussions around judicial shortcomings in school education. He argued that students should develop a realistic understanding of institutions “with warts and all”.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, remarked that the chapter appeared unbalanced because corruption was highlighted mainly in relation to the judiciary without sufficiently discussing its positive contributions.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Suparna Diwakar, also argued that the earlier order could negatively affect the academics’ livelihoods.

During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the Union government had already decided not to involve the academics in future projects.

The court further noted that concerns regarding textbook content could be examined by the expert committee headed by former Supreme Court judge Indu Malhotra.

- Ends