Panel members had not rejected USE outright

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Monday pointed out that the members of a committee that examined the contents of the uniform school education (USE) system and its textbooks, had not recommended discarding them outright.After going through the materials available on record and the arguments of advocate S Prabakaran, senior advocates N G R Prasad, R  Viduthalai and others, the First Bench comprising Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and Justice T S Sivagnanam observed that there was no uniform opinion that the USE and textbooks had to be outrightly rejected or discarded. The final report submitted to the court did not contain the full and actual views expressed by each member and their intent, the bench said.Bearing in mind the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in its order dated June 14 last, “We have no hesitation to hold that if the impugned Amending Act is allowed to stand, the impact on the education system and over one crore students would be tremendous and result in far reaching consequences.” The petitioners opposing the amendment had in one voice submitted that the students have been idling for more than one month, as they had no textbooks.“Therefore, to end the impasse, the only legal, reasonable and proper solution would be to direct the State to commence the academic session 2011-12 by using the syllabus and textbooks under the USE, which are printed and ready for distribution and simultaneously permit the State to examine the issues pointed out by the committee and to suggest additions and deletions within the shortest possible time, say within three months, and if necessary to introduce a supplemental booklet to cover the topics which are stated to have been omitted,” the bench said.The bench also observed that the conclusion given in the final report was perhaps not the true reflection of the individual comments/reports of the members. The individual members had not recommended the abandoning of the USE and the textbooks and reverting to the 2004 syllabus.The haste in which the decision was made, prima facie, showed that the action of the government to switch back to the old syllabus was not based on the report of any expert committee. “Therefore, it is evident that the purpose and intent of the Amending Act was in effect to do away with the USE under the guise of putting on hold the implementation of the parent Act, which the State was not empowered to do, more so when the validity of the parent Act had been upheld by the division bench, which judgment and order was confirmed by the SC. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Amending Act is an arbitrary piece of legislation, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and it was merely a pretence,” the bench said.