IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE JUDGEMENT BY MADRAS HIGH COURT ON SAMACHEER KALVI CASE ON JULY 18, 2011:

IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE JUDGEMENT BY MADRAS HIGH COURT ON SAMACHEER KALVI CASE ON JULY 18, 2011:

VISIT THE MHC SITE FOR FULL JUDGEMENT: http://judis.nic.in/judis_chennai/qrydisp.aspx?filename=32985

DOWN BELOW IS THE REPRODUCTION:

As noticed by us in the preceding paragraphs, there would be a great impact on the student community if the Amending Act is to be implemented.  It would unsettle settled issues, causing chaos and confusion in the young minds, which we cannot permit.  Much has been said about the syllabus and text books of Matriculation schools.  At this stage, we may point out that one of the Committee Members nominated by the Government, after the direction was issued by the Supreme Court, in her comments on the Uniform System of Education, the syllabus and text books, has stated that Samacheer Kalvi is a laudable object and a necessity and the present Matriculation and Anglo-Indian Streams are not perfect systems and do not conform to the principles laid down in the National Curriculum Framework-2005 and Samacheer Kalvi syllabus and text books have been prepared keeping the Matriculation Syllabus as a benchmark.  However, this observation of the Committee Member has not been fully brought out in the final report submitted by the Government to this Court.  Though much was said about the nomination of three Committee Members i.e., one Government representative and two academicians, we are satisfied on a perusal of the individual comments offered by these members that the validity of their nomination to the Committee need not be gone into.  At this stage, we may note that the Committee Members were not of the unanimous opinion that the uniform syllabus and common textbooks have to be discarded for the current year.  Each member has pointed out certain changes and additions.  The nominees from the NCERT have also voiced such an opinion.  The positive aspects of the uniform syllabus and common textbooks have been pointed out in their individual reports.  If that is the state of affairs, we feel that the decision of the State Government to put on hold the Uniform System of Education and to revert back to the 2004 stream is undoubtedly a step backward, which we shall not permit. 

            50. As noticed by us earlier, the parent Act has already been implemented in respect of Classes I and VI from the Academic Year 2010-2011.  Therefore, to revert back to the position prior to 2010-2011 would not only amount to violating the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and would have the effect of repealing the Parent Act, but also would be detrimental to the interests of the children.  Therefore, at this stage, such reversion should not be permitted, as the same would not be for the welfare of the student community.  In respect of the other classes, viz. Standards II to V and VII to X, it has been stated that substantial work has been done for introduction of the new syllabus and printing the textbooks and the same has already been made available to the students by publishing it in the official website.  Therefore, we are of the firm view that if the impugned Amending Act is to be given effect to, it would result in unsettling various issues and the interest of the children would be jeopardized.   

            51. As noticed by us earlier, much efforts appear to have been taken by Dr.S.Muthukumaran Committee from 2006 onwards and even thereafter, the Committee's report has been examined by a one man committee, which in turn, constituted a group of academicians to visit other States and study the pattern of education, and after considering all aspects, and after a period of more than four years, the system was introduced during 2010 and at that stage, the introduction of the Uniform System was resisted by the Matriculation Schools.  The impasse ended after the  Division Bench upheld the parent Act and allowed implementation of the Uniform System of Education for Standards I and VI from the Academic Session 2010-2011. Therefore, we cannot countenance the submission made by the State as well as the Matriculation Schools that the introduction of Uniform System of Education was done in a hasty manner.  The State has attempted to justify their action by stating that certain provisions of the Act have not been complied with, as directed by the Division Bench.  We fail to understand as to why the student community should be put at peril for the inaction or lethargy of the Executive.  Nothing prevented the Executive from notifying the Academic Authority, though the Division Bench found that the Board which was in place could very well be notified as the authority under the Act. At this stage, we may reiterate that though this Court while granting interim protection and liberty to the State to conduct a detailed study of the common syllabus and make addition or deletions, also directed the Government to conduct the study on the other books which have been given and notify the approved text books, with a view to comply with the direction of the Division Bench contained in paragraph 63 of the Division Bench judgment.  However, the State ignored this direction and the Matriculation Schools are now complaining that the Government has not notified the approved textbooks.

            52. In view of all the above reasons, we conclude by holding :-

            (a) Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Uniform System of School Education (Amendment Act 2010) is unconstitutional and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India and is accordingly struck down.

            (b) The State shall forthwith distribute the textbooks printed under the Uniform System of Education to enable the teachers to commence classes and such distribution shall be completed on or before  22.7.2011.

            (c) In terms of the recommendations made by the individual Members of the Committee constituted pursuant to the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the syllabus and textbooks shall be reviewed and the objectionable portions be ordered to be deleted and the materials or portions which are required to be included as per the suggestions of the individual Committee Members may be added and supplied to the students in the form of an additional booklet within a reasonable time, which in our view, would be three months.

            (d) The State shall notify the approved textbooks from among the textbooks already stated to have been submitted to the Government on or before 22.7.2011.

            53. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed on the above terms, all the impleading petitions are allowed and the other miscellaneous petitions are closed.  There shall be no order as to costs.  In view of our aforesaid findings, Writ Petition No.16266 of 2011 stands dismissed.

            54. We hope and trust that every endeavour shall be made by the State to implement the Uniform System of Education and achieve excellence, taking note that the children of today are the future of our country.