Prescribing school text books requires statutory authority and strict consultation, while the text-book power itself remained constitutionally valid.

The State could validly prescribe primary and middle school text books under its executive power before the 1973 Act, and publishers had no vested right to have their books accepted. The Board, however, lacked authority to prescribe language text books because the power to set courses of instruction did not by implication include power to select text books, so its notifications could not give those books statutory status. The higher secondary notification dated 24 May 1973 failed for want of mandatory prior consultation with the Board itself. Section 4 of the 1973 Act was upheld as a valid regulatory power aimed at uniformity and educational standards, and it did not infringe Articles 19(1)(g) or 14.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government validly prescribed the primary and middle school text books before the enactment of the 1973 Act, and whether those books were in force immediately before the appointed day; (ii) whether the Board had authority to prescribe text books on languages and whether its notifications could sustain their statutory continuance; (iii) whether the notification dated 24 May 1973 prescribing higher secondary text books was invalid for want of prior consultation with the Board; and (iv) whether section 4 of the 1973 Act infringed Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government validly prescribed the primary and middle school text books before the enactment of the 1973 Act, and whether those books were in force immediately before the appointed day.

Analysis: Though there was no express statutory provision before the 1973 Act authorising prescription of text books for primary and middle school classes, the State Government could act under its executive power under Article 162 in relation to education, a subject within its legislative competence. The prescription did not infringe any legal right of publishers, because no publisher has a vested right to have its books accepted as text books. The State Government could also insist upon prescribed books as a condition of recognition and grant-in-aid for private schools.

Conclusion: The primary and middle school text books prescribed by the State Government were validly prescribed and were in force immediately before the appointed day.

Issue (ii): Whether the Board had authority to prescribe text books on languages and whether its notifications could sustain their statutory continuance.

Analysis: The Board was a statutory creature and could exercise only the powers conferred by the Act. The power to prescribe courses of instruction did not by necessary implication include power to prescribe text books. The distinction between laying down a course and selecting a particular text book remained material, and the Board's notifications merely recommending or purporting to continue language text books could not override the absence of statutory power.

Conclusion: The Board had no power to prescribe language text books, and the relevant notifications could not make those books prescribed text books under the 1973 Act.

Issue (iii): Whether the notification dated 24 May 1973 prescribing higher secondary text books was invalid for want of prior consultation with the Board.

Analysis: The proviso to section 4(1) imposed a mandatory precondition of prior consultation with the Board before the State Government could prescribe higher secondary text books. The material showed consultation only with the Chairman, not with the Board itself, and the Chairman could not, in the absence of statutory delegation, be treated as the Board. Consultation with committees or the Chairman did not satisfy the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: The notification dated 24 May 1973 was invalid for breach of the mandatory requirement of prior consultation with the Board.

Issue (iv): Whether section 4 of the 1973 Act infringed Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The power to prescribe text books was held to be supported by legislative policy aimed at uniformity, standardisation and educational quality. The statute did not confer a naked or arbitrary discretion, because its object supplied a governing principle for the exercise of power. The availability of potential misuse did not by itself invalidate the provision, and publishers had no fundamental right to insist that their books be selected. The Court also emphasised that the power had to be exercised in a manner free from political or extraneous influence, but that possibility of abuse did not render the provision unconstitutional on its face.

Conclusion: Section 4 of the 1973 Act did not violate Articles 19(1)(g) or 14.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained limited substantive relief: the language text books and the books covered by the Board's earlier notifications were held not to be prescribed under section 4, and the State Government's notification dated 24 May 1973 was quashed, while the broader constitutional challenge to section 4 failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute authorises prescription of school text books, the power must be exercised only by the authority designated by the statute and, if the statute requires prior consultation with another body, that condition must be fulfilled strictly; however, a prescribing power is not unconstitutional merely because it confers discretion, so long as the statutory object furnishes a governing standard and no vested right of publishers is infringed.

---