The Supreme Court on Friday recalled its observations against three academicians, Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar, who were recently censured by the Court for the contents of NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) class 8 textbook chapter they drafted on corruption in judiciary.

A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi modified its order of March 11 and deleted the direction which said that the Central government, States, universities and educational institutions should disassociate themselves from the three experts and should not engage them in any capacity.

"While we reiterate, in no uncertain terms, that the curriculum contained in the Class 8 NCERT textbook was wholly undesirable and unnecessary, remedial steps regarding the insertion of new content relating to the Indian judiciary have already been initiated by the Government of India through the constitution of an expert committee headed by a former judge of this Court. However, in view of the explanation furnished by the applicants, namely the authors, we deem it appropriate to modify paragraph 8 of the order and recall the direction issued to the Government of India, the State Governments, Union Territories, universities, and educational institutions to disassociate themselves from the applicants in academic activities," the Court ordered today.

It left it open to the governments and other competent authorities to take an independent decision in this regard.

"In this regard, we leave it open to the Union of India, the State Governments, and other competent authorities to take an independent decision without being influenced by the observations made in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid order," the order said.

The Court also recalled its observation that three experts had deliberately misrepresented facts in the controversial chapter.

"It is further clarified that the opening line of paragraph 8 of the order, to the effect that the three applicants had deliberately or knowingly misrepresented facts, is also recalled in light of the explanation tendered by them," the Court said in its order today.

The controversy erupted in February after a newspaper reported about the textbook, titled Exploring Society: India and Beyond (Class 8, Vol. 2), particularly the section on “corruption in the judiciary” published as part of a chapter on “The role of the judiciary in our society."

The Court had taken a suo motu congnizance of the class VIII textbook published by the NCERT and said its contents demeaned the dignity of the judiciary.

After the Supreme Court initiated the case, NCERT released a press note attributing the controversial portion of the textbook to an inadvertent error of judgment, adding that it is withdrawing the said portion of the book and would be rewriting it after proper consultation.

When the matter was heard on February 26, the apex court imposed a blanket ban on production and distribution of the book.

The school education body then withdrew the book from the market and also apologized for the chapter on Indian judiciary. Danino was involved in drafting the chapter and he was assisted by Diwakar and Kumar, the NCERT told the Court in response to a court order.

The Court then ordered on March 11 that these experts should not be associated in any manner whatsoever with the preparation of the curricula or the finalization of textbooks in India.

It also directed that the issue be examined by a committee of domain experts, preferably including a former senior Judge, an eminent academician, and a renowned practitioner in law.

Pursuant to that, a three-member committee comprising Justice (retd.) Indu Malhotra, Senior Advocate KK Venugopal and Prakash Singh, Vice Chancellor of HNB Garhwal University was constituted.

The committee was asked collaborate with the National Judicial Academy Bhopal to finalise the legal studies curriculum of Class VIII and higher grades in compliance with NCERT syllabus.

During the hearing today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central government, said that the government will not associate itself with the three blacklisted experts.

"We will not like to be associated with any such members who drafted that class 8 chapter. I came across one such more instance in the standard 11 textbook. These are cartoons ... But for the impressionable age group.. this is not a place for cartoons," he said.

The Court then directed that the same may be examined by the three-member committee headed by Justice Malhotra.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for Professor Michel Danino, said that the order against the experts were passed ex-parte (without hearing them) and will have devastating consequences.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankarnarayanan, for Alok Prasanna Kumar, said that there was no deliberate or malicious intent on the part of the three experts.

"It was not deliberate or malicious at all. There are people who come before the media and try to make a big issue out of it. I was present when it was placed before you with a lot of drama and shown in that manner, and naturally everyone was taken aback. In the Class 8 textbook, the first part deals with various issues concerning administration, roads and other civic matters. Then comes the chapter on the judiciary," he said.

"We are completely aware of the fact that in some areas, the role of the judiciary has been highlighted and the challenges before the judiciary have also been highlighted. We are not concerned with whether it is positive or negative. We wanted to see whether it was balanced or not, and we felt that it was not balanced. The role of the judiciary and the aspect of constitutional supremacy were missing, whereas corruption was highlighted. What about access to justice and legal aid? There was not a single word about them," Justice Bagchi said.

Senior Advocate J Sai Deepak, appearing for Suprarna Diwakar said,

"The way it has been reported (in press), it is as if it's an aspersion on the individual."

"The dialogue which happens between the senior counsel and the judge should not be part of any media report. But we don't have any control over reportage. Our observations were only on the instance and not Individuals. We cannot help you with perceptions or what people think about you," Justice Bagchi replied.

[Read Live Coverage]