1974 (3) TMI 110 - SC - Indian Laws

State's Executive Power to Prescribe School Textbooks Upheld, Board's Authority Limited

NARAINDAS INDURKHYA Versus. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

NARAINDAS INDURKHYA Versus. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. - 1974 AIR 1232, 1974 SCR (3) 624, 1974 SCC (4) 788 Issues Involved:1. Statutory Authority to Prescribe Text Books2. Validity of Text Books Prescribed by the Board3. Status of Recommended Text Books4. Prior Consultation with the Board5. Reasonableness and Constitutionality of Section 4Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:Re: A. Statutory Authority to Prescribe Text BooksThe petitioner contested the validity of 28 text books prescribed by the State Government for primary and middle school classes before the enactment of the Act of 1973. The court held that although there was no statutory provision authorizing the State Government to prescribe these text books, the State Government could do so under its executive power as per Article 162 of the Constitution. This executive action did not infringe any rights of the petitioner or other publishers, as it was within the State Government's power to prescribe text books for both government and private schools that sought recognition and grant-in-aid from the State Government. Consequently, these 28 text books were validly prescribed and were in force immediately before the appointed day, falling within the category of prescribed text books under sub-section (2) of Section 4.Re: B. Validity of Text Books Prescribed by the BoardThe court examined whether the Board had the authority to prescribe text books, particularly for languages, under the Act of 1965. It concluded that the Board did not have the statutory power to prescribe text books, as the power to prescribe courses of instruction did not imply the power to prescribe text books. Consequently, the text books prescribed by the Board were not validly prescribed and could not be regarded as prescribed text books under sub-section (2) of Section 4. The notification dated 28th March 1973, issued by the Board, was also ineffective in prescribing these text books under sub-section (1) of Section 4.Re: C. Status of Recommended Text BooksThe court clarified the distinction between recommending and prescribing text books. Recommended text books, as mentioned in the notifications dated 5th April 1972, 25th April 1972, 26th April 1972, and 17th May 1972, were not prescribed text books and thus could not be considered as prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 4. The notification dated 28th March 1973, issued by the Board, merely continued these text books as recommended and did not elevate them to the status of prescribed text books under sub-section (1) of Section 4.Re: D. Prior Consultation with the BoardThe petitioner challenged the validity of the notification dated 24th May 1973 on the ground that there was no prior consultation with the Board as required by the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4. The court found that the recommendations for text books were made by the Chairman of the Board and not by the Board itself. Since the Act of 1965 and the Regulations did not delegate the power of the Board to the Chairman, the consultation with the Chairman could not be equated with consultation with the Board. Therefore, the notification dated 24th May 1973 was held invalid for not complying with the mandatory requirement of prior consultation with the Board.Re: E. Reasonableness and Constitutionality of Section 4The petitioner argued that Section 4 of the Act of 1973 imposed unreasonable restrictions on his right to carry on business and was violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution. The court held that the power to prescribe text books was not unguided or unfettered, as it was controlled by the objective of ensuring uniformity and excellence in education. The court also emphasized that the possibility of misuse or abuse of discretionary power did not invalidate the power itself. The court suggested that the State Government could set up an independent high power committee to assist in the selection and prescription of text books, thereby ensuring fairness and eliminating political or personal biases. Consequently, Section 4 was not struck down as unconstitutional.ConclusionThe court allowed the petition to a limited extent, declaring that the text books prescribed by the Board and the recommended text books could not be regarded as prescribed text books under sub-sections (1) or (2) of Section 4. The notification dated 24th May 1973 was quashed for lack of prior consultation with the Board. Other reliefs claimed by the petitioner were rejected, and the rule was discharged without any order as to costs.