LexNARAINDAS INDURKHYA versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
6 24
NARAINDAS: INDURKHYA
v.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.
March 18, 1974.
{A. N. RAY, C. J., H. R. KHANNA, K. K. MATHEW, A. ALAGIRISWAmI .
. P. N. BIIAGWA1I, .JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Prathmik -;.,fiddle School Tatha Madhyamik Shiksha (Pothya
Pustakon Samb(}ndhi Vy' v rstha) Adhiniyam, 1973, S. 4(1) and 4{2}--Whether State
Governme1_ t coli/J prescribe text books in exercise of executive power-Education
Board not expressly empowered to prescribe books-if could prescribe text books on
languages-Distinction between recommendation and prescription-Whether consul~
talion with Chairn1an of the Board would amount to consultation with the Board.
Constitution of India -Art. 14 and 19(1)(g)-/f the Act l'iolates Art. 162~
Scope,of.
By S:ction 8 or t'1: ~l1dhya Prad.!sh Madhyarrik Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1965 the
Board of Secondary Education was empowered to prescribe courses of instruction
in such branches of Secondary education as it may think fit. _The Board claimed
that the power to prescribe courses of instruction carried with it by necessary impli·
cation the pov•er to prescribe text books, and did prescribe text books on languages.
This Act was replaced by the Madhya Pradesh Prathmik Middle School Tatha
Madhyamik Shiksha (Pathya Pustakon Sambandhi Vyavastha) Adhiniyam, 1973.
Section 4(1) empo\vered the State Government to prescribe text books according
to syllabi laid down under s. 3. The proviso to sub-section (1) enacted that the
text books for secondary education shall not be prescribed without prior consulta·
tion with the Board. Sub-section (2) of this section stated that the text books pre·
"Scribed by the State Gcvernment or the Board and 'in fcrce' immediately before the
appointed day shall, till they are changed in accordance with the provisions of this
Act, be the text-books prescribed for the purpose of sub-section (1). Sub·section
(3) prohibited the use of any lf"ooks other than the text books prescribed under sub·
section (1) or referred to in sub-section (2) in any approved school or recognised
-school from the appointed day, that is, 23rd March, 1973. Jn exercise of the powers
conferred by section 4(1) the State Government issued a notification dated 24th
May, 73 giving its approval to -certain text.books for the Higher Secondary School
Certificate Examination in Y>'hich it was stated that the approval of these text bo( ks
was given by the State Government in consultation \Vith the Board of Secondary
Education. A notification was issued by the Board on 28th March, 1973 giving
directions that the scheme of exarr.ination for the higher secondary school certificate
-examination 1976 shall continue as per the same examination in 1975 and that ex~
cept for the language subjects the text·books recommended or prescribed by the
Board for higher_ secondary school certificate examination 1975 in respect of other
_____ subjects shall be the recommended or prescribed text-books for the same exami·
nation for the year 1976.
A
c
E
F
The petitioner carried en business in printing, publishing and selling text.books
for use in schools in the State. The petitioner was one of the publishers \Vho register·
G
. (:d himself \Vith the Board and submitted text-books published by him for the app-.
roval of the Board. From among the books received for approval the Board recom·
mended certain text-books but none of the text·books prescribed or recommended
by the Board \Vas text book printed and published by the petitioner.
In a petiton under article 32 of the Constitution it \Vas contended (1) that before
the 1973 Act the State Government had no statutory authority to prescribe any text·
books and~ therefore, the text-books published by the Text Book Corporation and
prescribed by- the State Government could not be said to be validly prescribed and
H
they could not be regarded as text·books •in force' immediately before the appoin·
ted day under s. 4(2) of the Act, (2) that there was no statutory provision empower-
ing the
BJard to Prescribe any text-books
on
languages . and the
notification prescribing the text·books was ineffective because it v•as issued
A
8
D
E
F
G
H
NAIWNDAS v. M.P. STATE (Bhagwati J.)
625
by the Board and not by the State Government which alone could prescribe the
text-books under s. 4(1); (3) that the text-books recommended by the Board could
not be regarded as text-books 'in force' immediately before the appointed day under
s. 4(2) and thExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.