Explained | Who is Michel Danino, censored by the Supreme Court in NCERT textbook row

The Supreme Court order on Wednesday brought academic Professor Michel Danino into the spotlight after the court directed the Centre, all state governments and publicly funded institutions to keep him and two associates away from school curriculum work linked to the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).

The directions came in connection with a disputed sub-chapter titled ‘Corruption in the Judiciary’ that appeared in the Class 8 NCERT Social Science textbook. The court felt the material raised serious concerns about how the judiciary had been portrayed to young students.

Advertisement

According to the court’s order, Professor Danino was serving as the chairperson of the NCERT social science curriculum panel that oversaw the content. Two other members associated with the chapter – Ms Diwakar and Mr Alok Prasanna Kumar – were also named in the order.

The bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said the three individuals should not be involved in preparing school curriculum or finalising textbooks meant for future batches of students. The court also directed that they should not render services to institutions where payments would come from public funds.

The judges said they were concerned that the chapter could present the Indian judiciary in a negative light to Class 8 students, who are still at an impressionable stage of learning.

However, the court made it clear that the three individuals can approach the court to seek modification of the order after providing their explanation.

“At the outset, we have no reason to doubt that Professor Michel Danino, along with Ms Diwakar and Mr Alok Prasanna Kumar, either does not have reasonable knowledge about the Indian judiciary or they deliberately and knowingly misrepresented the facts in order to project a negative image of the Indian judiciary before students of Class 8 who are at an impressionable age. There is no reason as to why such persons be associated in any manner with the preparation of the curriculum or finalisation of textbooks for the next generation. We direct Union, all States and all institutions receiving State funds to disassociate them from rendering any service which would mean payment to them from public funds,” the court noted.

A scholar of Indian civilisation and education

Professor Michel Danino describes himself as a long-time student of Indian civilisation who has lived in India since 1977. Over the years, he has written extensively and delivered lectures on Indian cultural history and knowledge traditions at universities and academic institutions.

His research papers on early Indian history and protohistory have appeared in journals such as Man and Environment, Puratattva and Dossiers d’archéologie. He has also contributed more than 30 chapters to academic books.

Danino has authored and edited several books, including The Lost River: On the Trail of the Sarasvati, Indian Culture and India’s Future, and Sri Aurobindo and India’s Rebirth. He has also been associated with school-level education initiatives, including the CBSE course “Knowledge Traditions and Practices of India.”

In academia, he has taught or delivered lecture series on ancient Indian heritage and knowledge systems at institutions such as IIT Kanpur, IIT Gandhinagar, IIM Ranchi and Amrita University. At IIT Gandhinagar, he helped initiate a semester course on Indian Knowledge Systems and contributed to the development of the Archaeological Sciences Centre.

Danino has also served on several academic and policy bodies, including the Indian Council of Historical Research and committees linked to the development of India’s National Curriculum Frameworks.

Supreme Court flags textbook process

During the hearing, the Supreme Court also examined how the controversial chapter had been approved.

NCERT had informed the court through an affidavit that the relevant chapter had already been rewritten. But the bench said the revised version cannot be included in the curriculum unless it is cleared by a panel of domain experts to be set up by the Central government.

The court suggested that the committee should include a former senior judge, an eminent academician, and a renowned legal practitioner.

The bench also expressed disappointment over the composition of the earlier panel, noting that no eminent jurist had been included in the committee reviewing the content.

At the same time, the court clarified that its order was not meant to stop legitimate criticism of the judiciary. It said constructive and objective discussion about the functioning of institutions can help address shortcomings.

“We hasten to reiterate paragraph 9 of our order dated February 26 to show that the interim directions issued are not intended to prevent any healthy, objective and legitimate criticism of the functioning of the judiciary. If the judiciary is suffering from any deficiencies like any other institution, it will be a welcome step not only for the future generation of the nation, it will open doors for the present generation to take necessary remedial steps”, the Court noted.

Earlier, on February 26, the Supreme Court had taken suo motu cognisance of the issue and issued notices to officials from the Department of Education and Literacy in the Ministry of Education and NCERT. The court had also imposed a ban on the Class 8 textbook containing the disputed chapter.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the court that the NCERT Director had submitted an unconditional apology through an affidavit. The government also told the court that it had asked NCERT to review textbooks across all classes.

While accepting the apology, the bench observed that the affidavit had highlighted weaknesses in the approval process of the NCERT curriculum.

The court has now asked the Centre to set up the expert panel within one week to examine the rewritten chapter before any further decision on publication.