HC questions rationale behind making changes in textbooks

Court seeks explanation from SCERT

February 13, 2020 01:38 am | Updated 04:49 am IST

An aerial view of the Madras High Court. File

An aerial view of the Madras High Court. File

The Madras High Court on Wednesday questioned the basis on which State Council for Educational Research and Training (SCERT) takes a decision to add or delete content from the textbooks prescribed for school students and wanted to know the procedures that were followed before taking such decisions.

Justices M. Sathyanarayanan and R. Hemalatha raised the question during the hearing of a public interest litigation petition filed by advocate S. Doraisamy of Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam (TPDK) against a circular issued by SCERT on January 10 for deleting a particular sentence from Class X social science textbook.

The sentence read that Hindu Mahasabha and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) had taken a pronounced anti Muslim stance during the days that led to the partition. P. Chandrasekaran, secretary of Chennai chapter of RSS, had taken exception to the sentence and made a representation to delete it from the textbook.

When his plea was not answered, he filed a writ petition before the High Court. During the course of hearing, SCERT told the court that it had decided to delete the sentence from the copies to be printed in future.

Insofar as the copies that had already been distributed, it was stated that stickers would be pasted on top of the sentence.

A single judge of the court was also told that the SCERT had written to the Director of School Education as well as the Director of Matriculation Schools to ensure that the sentence was effaced, by pasting a sticker on top of it, from the textbooks that had already been distributed to the students.

When advocate V. Elangovan, representing the present PIL petitioner, assailed such a decision taken by SCERT and contended that history should not be allowed to be changed, the judges called for an explanation from SCERT as to how could it make changes to a textbook solely on the basis of an individual’s representation.

They directed Special Government Pleader C. Munusamy to ensure that a counter affidavit along with supporting documents by March 19.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.