In a big development, the Supreme Court on Friday recalled its previous order banning three academics, who were involved in the preparation of the controversial NCERT Class 8 chapter on corruption in the judiciary, from academic projects of Central or State Universities and public educational institutions.
The Court clarified that the Union and the States may take an independent decision on associating these academics for academic projects. The Court also expunged the adverse observation made in its March 11 order that the three academics "deliberately and knowingly have misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian Judiciary to students of Class 8."
While reiterating that the chapter was "wholly undesirable", the Court observed : "Owing to the explanation given by the applicants, we deem it appropriate to modify para 8 of the order and recall the direction given to the Government of India/State/UT/Institutions to disassociate the 3 applicants from the academic activities."
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the order after considering the applications filed by the academics - Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar- seeking recall of the order. The bench expressed satisfaction with the explanation offered by the academics that there was no malice in preparing the chapter, and that it was finalised following a collective decision.
Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for Michel Danino, submitted that the March 11 order was passed without hearing them. He clarified that it was not a case of "individual authorship" and was a collective decision. He requested suspending the Court's adverse order, saying that it has "far-reaching consequences."
Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for Alok Prasanna Kumar, submitted that the Class 8 chapter on judiciary was a continuation of the chapters in Classes 6 and 7, and said that the Class 8 book also dealt with the issues affecting other areas of administration.
Justice Bagchi said that the issue was that corruption was presented as a problem unique to the judiciary. "We have to see if it was balanced. On the other hand, corruption was highlighted as a unique feature. Not a single word about access to legal services. Nothing to say about the role of judges in legal services," Justice Bagchi said. Sankaranarayanan added that there were other portions discussing the contributions made by the judiciary.
Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Suparna Diwakar, submitted that his client only had a limited role. He submitted that the Supreme Court's order will affect their right to livelihood. When the bench agreed to lift the ban on the academics, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the Union Government has decided not to associate these persons in future works. The SG also refuted the claim that it was a collective decision by the academics, saying that the chapter was not placed before all members of the concerned committee, and that it was only emailed to 3-4 members.
Follow us
