High Court Of Calcutta
M. M. Dutt, Monoj Kumar Mukherjee
THE WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION - Appellant
Versus
SM.BASANA RANI GHOSH - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 955 Of 1982
Decided On : 05/14/1982
EDUCATION - SYLLABUS - LEGALITY - WEST BENGAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT, 1963 (WEST BENG. ACT 23 OF 1963) - SECTIONS 19A(3)(G), 27(2)(C) - REVISED HISTORY SYLLABUS FOR CLASS VIII - CHALLENGE TO VALIDITY - COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PROVISIONS - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 19(1)(A) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The West Bengal Board of Secondary Education revised the history syllabus for Class VIII, which included names of international leaders and less emphasis on Indian history. The revision was challenged by guardians of students and the West Bengal Headmasters' Association, alleging non-compliance with statutory provisions and violation of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the revised syllabus was illegal as it was not prepared in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1979. The Court also held that the challenge to the syllabus's constitutionality was premature and would be considered once the syllabus was prepared in accordance with the law.
Issues: 1. Whether the revised history syllabus was prepared in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1979? 2. Whether the revised syllabus violated Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the revised syllabus was illegal as it was not prepared in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963, as amended by the Amendment Act of 1979. The Court noted that the Board had not followed the mandatory procedure laid down in the Act, which required the Board to make regulations, prepare bye-laws, and prescribe the syllabus in accordance with the approved regulations. 2. The Court held that the challenge to the syllabus's constitutionality was premature and would be considered once the syllabus was prepared in accordance with the law. The Court noted that the question of constitutional validity would arise only when the syllabus had been prepared in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act.
Final Decision: The Court quashed the revised history syllabus and directed the Board to prepare a new syllabus in accordance with the provisions of the Act by October 1982. The Court also allowed schools that had prescribed books based on the impugned syllabus to continue teaching those books for the current year, while schools teaching books based on the old syllabus could continue to do so.
( 1 ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, its President and Secretary against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. By the said judgment, the learned Judge made absolute the Rule Nisi issued on the application of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
( 2 ) THE respondents Nos. 1 and 3 are the guardians of two students of Class VIII and the respondent No. 2 is the West Bengal Headmaster Association. In the Writ Petition, the said respondents who were the Writ Petitioners, challenged the validity of the revised history syllabus for Class VIII prescribed by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The case of the Writ Petitioners is that in the State of West Bengal, there are two types of schools, namely, one under the Central Board of Education, New Delhi, and the other under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education. The syllabi of the two groups of schools are different, but both of them are in conformity with the syllabus as framed by the National Council of Educational Research and Training, hereinafter referred to as NCERT, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Education, Government of India, New Delhi. The complaint of the Writ Petitioners, in short, is that there has been serious departure in the revised history syllabus for Class VIII from the syllabus that was in force immediately before the revised syllabus. In the revised syllabus, there is no specific mention of any Indian leader-- social, religious, literary, scientific or political -- whereas names of Marx, Engles. Mao, Sun Yatsen, Chiang, eleven leaders of intellectual renaissance, three leaders of renaissance in Arts, six leaders of renaissance in Science, ten navigators of Europe and three leaders of reformation movement in Europe have been specifically mentioned in the syllabus. The main grievance of the Writ Petitioners is that different phases of freedom movement in India have been covered by only 10 pages out of 135 pages, whereas Bolshevik revolution has occupied 5 pages, Chinese revolution 5 pages and revolution in South East Asia 3 pages. It is alleged that the students who will pass from the Board under the revised syllabus, particularly in history, may be lost in track in Central educational system and may develop separate outlook affecting national integration and national solidarity. It is contended by them that the revised history syllabus for Class VIII has net been framed in accordance with the prevision of Section 27 (2) (c) of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act. 1963, as amended by the West Bengal Secondary Education (Amendment) Art, 1979 read with the provision of clause (g) of Sub-section (3) of Section 19a incorporated in the Act by the said amendment Act. The further challenge to the validity of the revised history syllabus is that it is ultra vires Article 19 (1) (a) read with Article 51a (b) of the Constitution of India.
( 3 ) THE Rule Nisi was opposed by the appellants and also by the State of West Bengal. An application was filed by the West Bengal Publishers' Association for being added as a party respondent in the Writ Petition. It appears from the record that the said application was not disposed of by the learned Judge. The West Bengal Publisners Association has also filed an appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge.
( 4 ) IN the affidavit-in-opposition of the appellants, which has been affirmed on Feb. 13, 1982 by Sri Nirmal Sinha, Secretary of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, it has been averred that the Writ Petitioners, who are the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 in this appeal, have no locus standi to maintain an application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The case of the appellants is that in order to bring about a national consensus in the field of education through an academic advisory oganisa-tion, the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare set up a body called
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.