New Delhi: The controversial chapter on judiciary in the Class 8 NCERT Social Science textbook was not drafted with the intention to disrespect the institution. Instead, it sought to highlight the challenges faced by courts in the present times. Making this submission before the Supreme Court, an affidavit, filed by one of the three authors, Michel Danino, said a discussion on judicial challenges did not malign the judiciary, it is learnt.
Danino and the other two authors—Alok Prasanna Kumar and Suparna Diwakar—have filed their individual affidavits along with applications, through which they have urged the top court to modify its 26 March order that barred them from associating with any future academic projects of public institutions.
In their affidavits, the authors told the court that such observations are extremely prejudicial to them and impact their fundamental rights to employment and livelihood, permanently ostracizing them in the academic and educational world. The comments also impose a permanent badge of dishonor, they added.
The adverse order came following a court rebuke to the NCERT for writing about corruption in the judiciary. A two-judge bench led by Chief Justice Suryakant had registered a suo motu case, after taking cognisance of an article on the chapter when flagged by a group of senior counsel.
In this order the court made terse remarks against the authors, observing: “….they either do not have reasonable informed knowledge about the Indian Judiciary and/or they deliberately and knowingly have misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian Judiciary to students of Class 8.”
If the chapter spoke about challenges faced by the judiciary, it at the same time highlighted the institution’s role in protecting human rights, Danino stated through his affidavit, it is learnt.
Danino added that Supreme Court’s intervention in social issues, its striking down of unjust or ill-conceived laws were also a part of the chapter that also carried an “inspiring side-box on Justice Kuldip Singh and his role in developing environmental jurisprudence in this country”.
The chapter, they submitted, was not a personal critique but relied on official and public data already debated in the national press and quoted by a former Chief Justice of India in one of his public speeches.
To NCERT Director D.P. Saklani’s submission that the chapter was drafted exclusively by the three scholars, one of the authors said it was an inaccurate picture as the members of the two overarching bodies were kept informed throughout the development process.
The two bodies are the high-powered National Syllabus and Teaching-Learning Material Committee (NSTC), with 19 members, and the National Curriculum Frameworks Oversight Committee (NOC). Also, the The Textbook Development Team (TDT) for the Class 8 Social Science (Part 2) textbook consisted of 15 active members, not three, the author added.
The affidavit went on to say that the chapter in question was a culmination of a series of chapters on the theme of “Governance and Democracy” and the authors chose to engage students in critical thinking by highlighting challenges in every area of governance. All these chapters, it submitted, were in accordance with the mandate under the new National Educational the new National Educational Policy 2020 (NEP 2020) and the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2023 (NCF-SE 2023) issued by the Ministry of Education, Government of India, to reimagine school education for the 21st century.
Paramount interest of the children and their future was kept in mind while the chapter was written, the author submitted, adding that the emphasis was to encourage critical thinking in school students to meet India’s democratic vision and create responsible citizens.
The CJI Suryakant-led bench Monday agreed to hear the modification applications and directed their listing, subject to the registry clearing the defects.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar and advocate Amit Pait, appearing for Dalino, submitted that he has filed an explanation.
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak appeared for Suparna Diwakar. Summarising her stand, he told the bench: “The sum and substance of the application is that this was a collective process and no individual had the sole say or authority.”
The bench also recorded the submission of the Union Government that a committee comprising Justice (Retired) Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate K.K. Venugopal and Prakash Singh, Vice Chancellor of Garhwal University, will review the contents of the revised chapter. It will collaborate with the National Judicial Academy headed by Justice (retired) Aniruddha Bose to settle courses on legal education for students of Class 8 and above.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)
Also Read: Supreme Court’s NCERT textbook order punishes the messenger, doesn’t answer the message