Academic Experts Seek Redress as Textbook Dispute Reaches Supreme Court
The controversy surrounding a social science textbook for eighth-grade students has taken a significant legal turn, with three academicians moving the Supreme Court to present their side of the story. The educators, who were earlier barred from contributing to the textbook development process, approached the apex court on Monday seeking clarity and vindication of their roles.
The dispute revolves around a chapter in the NCERT textbook that allegedly contained references to corruption within the Indian judiciary. Following objections raised by the court, the three experts—identified as Professor Michel Danian, along with colleagues Suparna Divakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar—were instructed to disassociate from any further textbook-related work. The trio has now contested this directive, asserting that the drafting was never a solitary exercise but a collective team effort.
Experts Assert Credibility Before the Bench
During the hearing, a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was informed that the three academicians are not individuals of fleeting relevance but possess substantial professional standing and credibility in their respective fields. Senior advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, representing Alok Prasanna Kumar, highlighted that the court’s earlier observations had caused considerable reputational harm to his client, prompting the filing of applications to clarify their position.
When the Chief Justice inquired whether the academicians were defending their actions, Shankaranarayanan responded that the experts merely wished to present their perspectives and insights. He emphasised that their intention was to demonstrate how educational methodologies are evolving in alignment with the National Education Policy, which encompasses a broader range of contemporary issues.
The counsel further pointed out that textbooks for classes six and seven also address challenges faced by the legislature, the executive, and the Election Commission. He argued that singling out the judiciary for discussion was not an act of isolation but part of a comprehensive pedagogical approach. Shankaranarayanan requested the court to grant time for a detailed hearing, stating, “We want to show the court the entire process. These are not transient individuals but highly credible scholars. The author himself is a former lawyer who has appeared before this very court.”
Collective Process Emphasised by Legal Representatives
Senior advocate Arvind Datar, appearing for Michel Danian, confirmed that his client had also submitted a clarification application. Similarly, senior advocate J. Sai Deepak, representing Suparna Divakar, explained that the essence of their application is that the textbook development was a collaborative process, and no single individual held exclusive authority or decision-making power.
The Supreme Court took note of the applications and directed that they be placed on record. The bench scheduled the next hearing for two weeks later, allowing time for a thorough examination of the submissions made by the academicians.
Government’s Review Committee Acknowledged
The court also recorded the submission made by Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the central government, regarding the constitution of a committee to review the revised chapter’s content. The committee includes former Supreme Court judge Justice Indu Malhotra, former Attorney General K.K. Venugopal, and Prakash Singh, Vice Chancellor of Garhwal University.
Additionally, the court noted that the committee would collaborate with the Bhopal-based National Judicial Academy, which is chaired by former Supreme Court judge Justice Aniruddha Bose. This collaborative framework aims to ensure that the revised educational material aligns with judicial propriety and factual accuracy.
Restructured Curriculum Committee Announced
The court further observed that NCERT had issued a notification on April 2, restructuring the National Curriculum and Teaching Material Committee (NSCTC). This high-level body is tasked with developing the national curriculum and teacher learning resources. The reconstituted committee will comprise twenty distinguished members, with M.C. Pant serving as its chairperson.
Taking suo motu cognisance of the matter, the Supreme Court has adjourned the proceedings for two weeks, allowing all parties involved to prepare their arguments comprehensively.
Background of the Controversy
The origins of this dispute trace back to March 11, when the Supreme Court took a stringent stance against the three experts involved in drafting the contentious chapter. The court had directed the central government and all state administrations to sever ties with these individuals, citing concerns over the chapter’s content and its potential impact on students’ perceptions of the judiciary.
The court had instructed the central government to constitute a committee of relevant experts within one week to finalise the law-related curriculum for class eight and higher classes. This directive was aimed at ensuring that future educational materials present a balanced and accurate portrayal of India’s legal institutions.
No Doubt Cast on Understanding of Judiciary
Interestingly, the court had earlier observed that it had no reason to doubt that Professor Michel Danian and his colleagues lacked proper knowledge about the Indian judiciary. The bench had stated, “Initially, we have no reason to suspect that these individuals do not possess adequate information regarding the Indian judiciary and/or that they deliberately and knowingly misrepresented facts to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary before class eight students.”
Despite this observation, the court saw no justification for continuing to involve these individuals in curriculum development or textbook finalisation processes intended for the next generation of learners. This apparent contradiction has been a focal point of the academicians’ plea for clarification.
Directive to Disassociate from Responsibilities
The court had previously instructed the central government, state governments, union territories, universities, and publicly funded institutions to “immediately disassociate these three individuals and not assign them any responsibility involving, wholly or partially, the utilisation of public funds.”
However, the court clarified that this order would only take effect if the concerned individuals appealed to the Supreme Court for modification and submitted any clarifications they wished to present. This conditional directive has now led to the current proceedings, where the academicians are seeking to restore their professional standing.
Unconditional Apology Submitted by NCERT
The court also took note of an affidavit filed by Professor Dinesh Prasad Saklani, Director of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), who offered an unconditional and unequivocal apology on his own behalf and on behalf of the organisation for including the contentious chapter.
On February 26, the Supreme Court had imposed a complete ban on the NCERT class eight social science textbook, prohibiting its further printing, republication, or online dissemination. The court described certain content within the book as “objectionable” and noted that it had a severe impact on the perception of the judiciary. This comprehensive prohibition underscored the gravity with which the court viewed the matter, setting the stage for the ongoing legal deliberations.
