Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2146 (RAJ)

Yashwant Singh Choudhary v. Union of India

2006-07-07

P.S.ASOPA, S.N.JHA

body2006
Judgment 1. This writ petition has been filed as a public interest litigation seeking the following reliefs:- (a) To hold that the decision taken by the Respondent No. 1 to 3 to withdraw the existing text books of History prescribed in the year 2003 for classes 6th to 12th in accordance with the syllabus framed for the implementation of the NCFSE-2000 (as enlisted in Schedule B) is unreasonable, arbitrary, mala fide and so liable to be struck down. (b) Tohold that the decision taken by the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to re-introduce the reprints of old text books of history for classed 6th to 12th, as enlisted in Schedule C is unreasonable, arbitrary, mala fide and so liable to be struck down. (c) Directing the Respondents No. 1 to 3 not to impose the books enlisted and detailed in the Schedule C and to continue with the books enlisted and detailed in the Schedule B for the classes 6th to 12th in school education. (d) Directing the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to conduct the examination of the students of the classes 6th to 12th strictly in accordance with the syllabus, framed for the implimentation of NCFSE-2000 and not in contravention to the NCFSE-2000 in any manner whatsoever. (e) Directing the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to circulate the instructions to the schools not to teach to the students, those portions of the books on history which are not included in books as enlisted in Schedule B, more specially, which were found, by the Respondent No. 3 as objectionable and offending the sentiments of various communities of Indian Society. (f) Directing the Respondents No. 1 to 3 to delete the portions in text-books regarding Jat and Rajput communities which are highly objectionable and contrary to the legal and fundamental rights of the members of the said communities. (g) To grant ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a) to (f). (h) Pass any other such order/s as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The case was heard at length yesterday and fixed for orders today. When the case was taken up today for dictation of order Counsel submitted that he confines the writ petition to prayer (f) i.e. for deleting objectionable portions regarding Jat and Rajput communities in the text books. The case was heard at length yesterday and fixed for orders today. When the case was taken up today for dictation of order Counsel submitted that he confines the writ petition to prayer (f) i.e. for deleting objectionable portions regarding Jat and Rajput communities in the text books. It is said that the said prayer is in accordance with paragraph 95 of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Aruna Roy & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors, 2002 (7) SCC 368 . Paragraph 95 of the Judgment which forms part of concurring Judgment of D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. runs as under:- "As pointed out by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioners, if there are certain offending portions in the curriculum, which are not historically correct or have a tendency to misrepresent, suppress or project a wrong information, they can be removed. The learned Solicitor-General on behalf of the Union of India and the Counsel appearing for NCERT have very candidly stated that if those portions are identified, there would be no objection to the Government to consider their deletion from the curriculum. It has been emphatically stated that the object of introducing "study of religions" in education from the primary stage is to ensure all-round development of a child and with the object that he grows as a citizen with respect for constitutional values." 3. From a bare reading it would be manifest that in response to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, stand was taken on behalf of the Union of India and NCERT that if offending portions are identified there would be no objection to the government to consider their deletion from the curriculum. Objectionable portions have been extracted in the writ petition in paragraph 5 as under:- "The Jats: The Jats, a caste of agriculturists, lived in the region around Delhi, Agra and Mathura. Jat peasants around Mathura revolted under the leadership of their Jat zamindars in 1669 and then again in 1688. These revolts were crushed but the area remained disturbed. After the death of Aurangzeb, they created disturbances all around Delhi. Though originally a peasant uprising, the Jat revolt, led by zamindars, soon became predatory. They plundered all and sundry, the rich and the poor, the jagirdars and the peasants, the Hindus and the Muslims. These revolts were crushed but the area remained disturbed. After the death of Aurangzeb, they created disturbances all around Delhi. Though originally a peasant uprising, the Jat revolt, led by zamindars, soon became predatory. They plundered all and sundry, the rich and the poor, the jagirdars and the peasants, the Hindus and the Muslims. They took active part in the Court inttigues at Delhi, often changing sides to suit their own advantage. The Jat State of Bharatpur was set up by Churaman and Badan Singh. Jat power reached its highest glory under Suraj Mal, who ruled from 1756 to 1763 and who was an extremely able administrator and soldier and a very wise statesman. He extended his authority over a large area which extended from the Ganga in the East to the Chambal in the South, the Subah of Agra in the West to the Subah of Delhi in the North. His State included among others the districts of Agra. Mathura, Meerut and Aligarh. He tried to lay the foundations of an enduring state by adopting the Mughal revenue system. A contemporary historian has described him as follows: Though he wore the dress of a farmer and could speak only his own Braj dialect, he was the Plato of the Jat tribe. In prudence and skill and ability to manage the revenue and civil affaris he had no equal among the grandees of Hindustan except Asaf Jah Bahadur. After his death in 1763, the Jat State declined and was split up among petty zamindars most of whom lived by plunder.” 4. It may be mentioned here that the decision in M/s Aruna Roy (Supra), was rendered on challenge to the National Education Policy, 2000. The Court declined to interfere observing, among other things, that it is for the parliament to take a decision on National Education Policy one way or the other and Court cannot take any decision on the good or bad points of an education policy. Education policy, it hardly need be pointed out, is the outcome of a detailed consideration of different facets at various levels by experts of the subject. 5. The case of the petitioner is that the History books were got written, published and prescribed in the schools in accordance with the 2000 Education Policy called National Educational Curriculum Framework for Schools (NCFSE). 5. The case of the petitioner is that the History books were got written, published and prescribed in the schools in accordance with the 2000 Education Policy called National Educational Curriculum Framework for Schools (NCFSE). However, in the year 2005 the respondents took a decision to withdraw the text-books and to introduce old history text-books which had been removed/withdrawn by the respondents on implementation of the NCFSE 2000 which was upheld by the Supreme Court. If that is so, prima facie, it would appear that offending portions formed part of the text-books prescribed in the schools before introduction of the new text-books under the new Education Policy NCFSE, 2000. 6. Be that as it may, as noted by the Supreme Court in Para 95 of the Judgment , relied upon by the Counsel, the Unioin of India and the NCERT were ready to consider deletion of the objectional portions from the text-books. It is, therefore, open to the petitioner to approach the concerned authorities of the Government of India and the NCERT for deletion of the objectionable portions from the text-books referred to above. While exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution the court cannot direct such deletion. The Court does not possess the expertise to go into correctness or otherwise of the objectionable text. 7. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of .