New Delhi

The Supreme Court of India on Friday modified its earlier March 11 order that had directed the Centre, states and other institutions to distance themselves from three academics linked to a controversial chapter in an National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) Class 8 textbook concerning alleged corruption in the judiciary.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the Centre, states, Union territories, public universities and government-funded institutions would now be free to take an independent decision regarding the academics without being influenced by the court’s earlier observations.

The bench, also comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi, further recalled the portion of its March 11 order which had stated that the three academics had “deliberately and knowingly misrepresented the facts” to create a negative impression of the judiciary among students.

The three academics involved in the matter are Professor Michel Danino, Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar.

The court passed the revised order after hearing submissions made by the academics, who argued that the textbook content was prepared through a collective drafting process and no single individual had exclusive authority over the material.

The bench clarified that its earlier remarks were directed at the content of the chapter and not intended as personal comments against the individuals concerned.

On March 11, the apex court had taken a strong view of the issue and directed the Centre and all state governments to disassociate themselves from the three experts involved in drafting the chapter.

It had also instructed the Centre to set up a committee of subject experts to review and finalise the legal studies curriculum for Class 8 and higher classes under NCERT.

The matter arose from a suo motu case titled “In Re: Social Science textbook for Grade-8 (part-2) published by NCERT and ancillary issues”.

READ MORE: Who clicked the first picture of Holy Kabba?

Earlier, on February 26, the Supreme Court imposed a blanket ban on further publication, reprinting or digital circulation of the Class 8 social science textbook containing the disputed material, observing that the judiciary was “bleeding” because of the contents.