SC bans textbook, orders seizure of all copies

SC bans textbook, orders seizure of all copies

The Supreme Court on Thursday said there was a “deep-rooted conspiracy” behind the “very, very calculated move” to portray the judiciary as a venal institution in a Class 8 social science textbook with “selective reference” about “corruption” in it.

The court ordered a “blanket and complete” ban on the book and the immediate seizure and sealing of each and every copy, both in digital and physical form.

The textbook was published by the National Council of Education Research and Training (NCERT), an autonomous organisation under the Ministry of Education, in February.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, in a suo motu case hearing, said the “reckless, irresponsible, motivated, contemptuous conduct and manner” of the textual depiction was meant to instil a bias against the judiciary in the “impressionable minds” of young schoolchildren, and through them, to society at large and even future generations.

Unconditional apology

The Bench said that “heads must roll” and initiated contempt action.

“All of us are holding our heads in shame,” Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said and offered the court an unconditional and unqualified apology.

The court would not let the issue fade into oblivion after a word of apology from the government or the NCERT, Chief Justice Kant said.

“This is a well-orchestrated and planned move. I would like to have a deeper probe. As the head of the judiciary, it is my duty to find out who is responsible. If there are more than one, heads must roll. I am not going to close this proceeding till I am satisfied,” the Chief Justice told the Union government.

Mr. Mehta said the people who worked on the textbook would never be assigned the task again by the Education Ministry.

If he had his way, Mr. Mehta added, they would not be employed by any other Ministry either.

Initiating contempt action, the court issued a show cause notice to both the Secretary of the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Education, and the NCERT Director, Dinesh Prasad Saklani, whom the court said had “defended” the “offensive content” even when the Supreme Court Secretary General, on the instruction of Chief Justice Kant, had sought an explanation. “They fired the gun and the judiciary is bleeding today,” Chief Justice Kant said, addressing the law officer.

‘Definitely deliberate’

The court said that, prima facie, an examination of the book’s contents and the response from the director, seemed like a calculated move to undermine the institutional authority and demean the dignity of the judiciary.

The Bench said, in its order, that the publication “washed off with one stroke of the pen the illustrious history associated with the Supreme Court, the High Courts” and their substantive contributions towards the preservation of democratic values.

“The text fails to mention the imperative role of the judiciary in upholding constitutional morality and basic structure which is the lifeblood of the Indian citizenry. The narrative of the book chooses not to delve into any of the transformative measures or initiatives to overhaul even the legal aid and streamline the ease of access to justice mechanism. This silence is particularly egregious given the sheer volume of high ranking officers who have been censured by this very court in the past for corrupt practices, fraudulent activities,” the Bench noted.

Senior members of the Bar, including senior advocates Kapil Sibal, A.M. Singhvi, and Supreme Court Bar Association president Vikas Singh, agreed that the content was “definitely deliberate”.

“The book will not remain confined to students only. Its contents are bound to travel from teacher to pupil to parent and to the entire society, including the next generation… It may have a lasting impact on judicial independence. Such misconduct falls within criminal contempt. If this conduct proves to be deliberate, it will amount to scandalising the institution and bring it to disrepute,” the court observed.

The court clarified that its suo motu registration of the case should not be construed as a move to stifle legitimate criticism of public institutions, including the judiciary.