Three educationists rapped by Supreme Court over NCERT chapter seek hearing

Three educationists who were “blacklisted” by the Supreme Court for drafting a controversial chapter on ‘Corruption in the judiciary’ in the Class 8 National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) Social Sciences textbook have said they are not “fly-by-night academics” and have “street cred”.

Author and academic Michel Danino, educationist Suparna Divakar and legal researcher Alok Prasanna Kumar urged the court to hear them. All three were part of NCERT’s Textbook Development Team (TDT).

The Supreme Court, while considering the contents of the textbook suo motu and stating that “heads would roll” for verbally portraying the judiciary in a biased manner, said the three pedagogues either “lacked reasonable, informed knowledge of the Indian judiciary and/or deliberately misrepresented the facts to create a negative image of the Indian judiciary before impressionable age students of Class 8.”

“We see no reason why such persons should be associated in any way with the purpose of preparing curricula or finalizing textbooks for the future generation of this country. Consequently, we direct the Government of India, State governments/Union Territories, universities and public institutions receiving government funds to immediately disassociate all three and not entrust them with any responsibility requiring public funds in whole or in part,” the court said.

He had passed the decision without notifying or listening to the three educators. However, the court had given them the freedom to apply for any relief.

Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing on Mr. Kumar’s behalf, said, “The chapter in the textbook has been changed. New books will come. But we believe we have something to say.”

“Are you defending your actions?” the Chief Justice questioned.

Mr. Sankaranarayanan said he just wanted to provide context.

“We are giving the context brought by the National Education Policy and the pedagogy, which also includes other issues. I was there when it was said that the judiciary was being excluded. The 6th and 7th grade textbooks deal with the problems, hurdles, hurdles, challenges faced by the legislature, the Election Commission and the Executive… We want to show the process followed. These are not overnight academics. These are academics with a lot of street cred.” Sankaranarayanan surrendered.

Senior advocate J. Saideepak Iyer, appearing on Ms. Divakar’s behalf, said the sum of her views was that the preparation of the section was a collective process and no individual had a single say or final authority.

Senior advocate Arvind Datar appeared on Mr. Danino’s behalf and asked the Board to hear them out.

Chief Justice Kant replied, “We certainly propose to hear all three.”

The government informed the court about setting up of an expert committee comprising former high court judge Justice (retired) Indu Malhotra, senior advocate KK Venugopal and Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University vice-chancellor Prakash Singh to finalize NCERT’s Legal Studies syllabus for Class 8 and other classes.

In February, the apex court had observed that the ‘Role of the Judiciary in Our Society’ chapter of the textbook, especially the subhead explaining ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’, had a “prima facie purpose to defame the Indian judiciary”. An insult lawsuit was initiated against those who stood behind the course.

The court had ordered a “total and complete” ban on the Social Sciences textbook even as the Center withdrew over 82,000 copies from circulation.