In a significant turn of events, the Supreme Court of India on Friday modified its March 11 order that had directed governments and public institutions to disassociate from three academics involved in drafting an NCERT textbook.
A three-judge bench, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, cleared the path for central and state governments, Union territories, public universities, and government-funded institutions to make independent decisions regarding the academics. Crucially, the bench ruled that these institutions should not be influenced by the court’s previous observations.
Furthermore, the apex court recalled its earlier remarks recording that the three academics—Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar, and Alok Prasanna Kumar—had “deliberately and knowingly misrepresented the facts” to present a negative image of the Indian judiciary to eighth-grade students.
Academics Argue Collective Process Behind Textbook
The Supreme Court’s modification comes after the three academics moved a plea to clarify their stance. They explained to the court that textbook drafting is a collective process, emphasizing that no single individual has sole say over the final contents.
In response, the bench clarified that its previous critical comments were made strictly in the context of the textbook’s actual contents, rather than as a reflection on the individuals themselves.
The three experts had served on the textbook development team under the chairmanship of Professor Danino, with Diwakar and Kumar participating as members.
How the Controversy Unfolded
The legal dispute stems from a suo-motu case initiated by the Supreme Court, titled “In Re: Social Science textbook for Grade-8 (part-2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues.”
The controversy escalated rapidly through the following timeline:
- February 26: The Supreme Court imposed a “blanket ban” on any further publication, reprinting, or digital dissemination of the NCERT Class 8 social science textbook. The court took strong exception to “offending” contents concerning corruption in the judiciary, dramatically stating that the authors had “fired a gunshot and the judiciary is ‘bleeding’.”
- March 11: Acting highly critical of the textbook’s drafting team, the court directed the Centre and all state governments to immediately disassociate from the three academics. It also ordered the Central government to establish a committee of domain experts within one week to finalize the legal studies curriculum for Class 8 and higher grades.
- Friday (Latest Ruling): The court walked back the forced dissociation mandate and recalled the personal allegations of deliberate misrepresentation against the trio, leaving future collaboration decisions entirely to the discretion of individual state and educational authorities.
