Three academics barred by the Supreme Court from all government projects for drafting a chapter about “corruption in the judiciary” in a now-withdrawn textbook on Monday sought a hearing in the matter, Live Law reported.
In personal affidavits filed in the court explaining the context in which they wrote the chapter, the three academics – Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar – also told the court that they are no “fly-by-night academics” and command “street cred”, The Hindu reported.
The bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a suo motu case taken up by the court regarding the chapter.
The chapter was part of a Class 8 social science textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training. The educational body on March 10 apologised for the chapter, and said that the entire book has been withdrawn.
The apology came two weeks after the court took suo motu cognisance of the matter and banned the publication and re-printing of the textbook.
An affidavit by NCERT Director Dinesh Prasad Saklani said that Danino, a visiting professor, had supervised the drafting of the chapter, while Diwakar, an educator, and Alok Prasanna Kumar, a legal researcher, were also involved in the process.
On March 11, the court directed the Centre and state governments to ensure that the three academics who were involved in the drafting of the chapter are not associated with other curriculum projects.
It also directed the Centre, state governments, Union Territories and universities to not assign the three of them “any responsibility which involves public funds”.
The court said that either the three academics did not have “reasonable knowledge about the Indian judiciary”, or they knowingly misrepresented facts. “There is no reason why such persons [should] be associated in any manner with the preparation of curriculum or finalisation of textbooks for the next generation,” it added.
On Monday, advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for Kumar, said that the comments of the court had caused prejudice against them, adding that their applications had been filed to explain their stance, Live Law reported.
In response, the chief justice asked: “Are you defending your actions?”
Sankaranarayanan added that the applications were filed to provide context and show the court the new pedagogy that has been adopted after the 2020 National Education Policy.
“Class 6, Class 7 textbooks do deal with issues faced by the legislature, executive and the Election Commission,” Live Law quoted the advocate as saying. “The argument was that the judiciary was singled out. Those issues [affecting other institutions] have also been dealt with.”
Advocate J Sai Deepak, representing Diwakar, said that “the sum and substance of the application is that this was a collective process and no individual had the sole say or authority”.
“We definitely propose to hear the three of them,” The Hindu quoted Kant as saying.
The chapter had listed “corruption at various levels of the judiciary” among the challenges that the judicial system faces, according to The Indian Express. It was part of a textbook titled “Exploring Society: India and Beyond”.
During a hearing on February 26, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, had apologised to the court. However, the bench had said that the press release issued by the NCERT at the time did not have a “single word of apology”.
You’ve read Scroll.
Now help sustain it
Scroll is funded by readers, not corporate owners. If you believe our work matters, support our newsroom. Become a member today!
We’re not driven by clicks or corporate interests – just honest, independent reporting. Keep us going. Support Scroll today!