1979 (2) TMI 193 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the syllabus for "Rapid Reading."
2. Compliance with statutory requirements for prescribing textbooks.
3. Government's power to prepare, print, and distribute textbooks.
4. Impact of non-compliance on the validity of prescribed textbooks.
5. Appropriate relief and directions for the future course of action.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Syllabus for "Rapid Reading":

The core controversy revolves around whether there is a statutorily solemnized syllabus under Section 3(2) of the 1973 Act and whether the State has the facultative power to compile and distribute its own textbooks under Section 5. The laying down of the syllabus is a condition precedent to the prescription of textbooks, as courses of instruction must follow and conform to the syllabus. The court found that the syllabus for "Rapid Reading" was not published as required by Section 3, which invalidates the subsequent prescription of textbooks.

2. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Prescribing Textbooks:

Section 3 requires the publication of the syllabus before prescribing textbooks. The court emphasized that "publication" means making the syllabus known to the educational world, including students and the teaching community. The State Government failed to comply with this requisite, as the syllabus for "Rapid Reading" was published only on June 30, 1978, while the textbooks were prescribed in October 1977. This breach invalidates the prescribed textbooks.

3. Government's Power to Prepare, Print, and Distribute Textbooks:

Section 5 authorizes the State Government to undertake the preparation, printing, and distribution of textbooks if it "considers it necessary so to do." The court clarified that the government has plenary power to produce its own textbooks, but this power is a responsible one and must be exercised with due consideration of relevant factors, such as the quality, cost, and availability of textbooks. The court stressed that private publishers have no right to have their textbooks necessarily considered by the government.

4. Impact of Non-Compliance on the Validity of Prescribed Textbooks:

The court held that the failure to publish the syllabus before prescribing textbooks renders the prescription invalid. However, the court also recognized the practical implications of this invalidation, particularly for the current academic year. To avoid disrupting the education of students, the court allowed the government textbooks for "Rapid Reading" to continue for the current academic year.

5. Appropriate Relief and Directions for the Future Course of Action:

The court directed the State Government to publish the syllabus for "Rapid Reading" and then consider representations from relevant quarters before deciding on the prescription of textbooks. The government must decide whether to choose textbooks from the private sector or to compile its own textbooks by March 31, 1979. The court emphasized that the decision must be made with due consideration of the educational welfare of students and the constitutional values of social justice and freedom of expression.

Conclusion:

The court allowed the appeal in part, invalidating the prescription of textbooks for "Rapid Reading" due to the failure to publish the syllabus. However, to avoid disruption for the current academic year, the court allowed the government textbooks to continue. The court issued time-bound directions for the State Government to publish the syllabus and decide on the prescription of textbooks for the next academic year, ensuring that the decision promotes the educational welfare of students and adheres to constitutional values. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.