New Delhi, April 6 – Three academics, who were restricted from offering their expertise following a controversy over a chapter in an NCERT textbook containing "offensive" content on corruption in the judiciary, approached the Supreme Court on Monday to explain their position, stating that no individual had sole authority in drafting the content and that it was a collective process.
The bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed that the three experts – Professor Michel Danion and his associates Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar – were not "fly-by-night" individuals and had a "lot of credibility".
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing Alok Prasanna Kumar, submitted that the court's earlier comments had caused significant prejudice, and hence they had filed applications to explain their stance.
CJI asked Sankaranarayanan, "Are you defending your actions?"
The senior counsel stated that the academics are trying to provide context, and the aim is to show the court the new pedagogy that aligns with the National Education Policy, including other relevant issues.
He added, "Class 6 and Class 7 textbooks also address issues faced by the legislature, the executive, and the Election Commission."
Sankaranarayanan stated, "The argument was that the judiciary was singled out. Those issues have also been addressed. We want to show the court the process. These are not fly-by-night individuals. They are academics with a lot of credibility. The author (Alok Prasanna) himself was a lawyer and has appeared before this court," and requested time to be heard by the court.
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Michel Danion, said that his client had also filed an explanation.
Senior advocate J Sai Deepak appeared for Suparna Diwakar and said, "The core of the application is that this was a collective process and no individual had sole authority or say."
The Supreme Court directed the application be taken on record and said it would hear them after two weeks.
It also recorded the submission of Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, that a committee comprising former apex court judge Justice Indu Malhotra, former Attorney General KK Venugopal, and Prakash Singh, who is the Vice Chancellor of Garhwal University, has been constituted to review the contents of the revised chapter.
It noted that the committee will collaborate with the National Judicial Academy at Bhopal, headed by former apex court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose.
The bench also noted that NCERT had issued a notification dated April 2 reconstituting the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC), a high-powered committee for preparing the national syllabus and teacher learning material.
The committee will comprise 20 distinguished members, with MC Pant serving as its Chairman.
The Supreme Court posted the case for hearing after two weeks.
On March 11, the Supreme Court had directed the Centre and all state governments to disassociate themselves from the three experts involved in drafting the controversial chapter in NCERT's Class 8 social science book, following concerns about "offensive" content on corruption in the judiciary.
The court directed the Centre to constitute a committee of domain experts within a week to finalise the curriculum of NCERT's legal studies for not only Class 8 but also higher classes.
The Supreme Court was informed that the chapter was drafted by the textbook development team under the chairmanship of Michel Danino and consisting of members Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar.
"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 bench had said.
The Supreme Court had said it sees no reason as to why these persons should be associated in any manner for the purpose of preparation of curriculum or for finalisation of textbooks for the next generation of children.
It had directed the Centre, state governments and Union Territories, universities, and public institutions receiving government funds to "disassociate three of them forthwith and not to assign any responsibility which incur fully or partially public funds".
It had, however, said that the court’s order shall be subject to their approaching the top court for modification along with an explanation, if any, they wish to tender.
It noted that Professor Dinesh Prasad Saklani, Director of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), has filed an affidavit tendering unconditional and unqualified apology on his behalf and on behalf of NCERT for inclusion of the chapter.
On February 26, the apex court imposed a "complete blanket ban" on any further publication, reprinting or digital dissemination of NCERT's Class 8 social science book which contained the "offensive" contents on corruption in the judiciary, saying they have fired a gunshot and the judiciary is "bleeding".