CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Room No.315, B­Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066)

Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar)

Information Commissioner

CIC/CC/A/2014/000207­SA (Video Conference – Jaipur)

Suryapratap Singh Rajawat Vs. National Council of Educational Research and Training, New Delhi

Dates:

RTI application: 1.5.2014

First appeal: 3.6.2014, FAO 16.6.2014

Second Appeal: 6.8.2014

Hearing: 6.1.2016

Decision: 22.1.2016

Parties present:

1. The appellant Suryapratap Singh Rajawat is present for video conference at NIC

Studio, Jaipur. The Public Authority is represented by Professor Neeraja Rashmi, PIO

along with Dr.M.V.S.V. Prasad, NCERT.

Facts:

2. Appellant by his RTI application had sought for information regarding his

representation to the department. Having received no information, appellant filed First

Appeal. PIO replied on 16.06.2014. Dissatisfied, appellant approached Commission.

Decision:

CIC/CC/A/2014/000207­SA Page 1 3. Both the parties made their submissions. The appellant Mr Suryapratap Singh

Rajawat, Convener, Sri Aurobindo Society Rajasthan, criticized non­inclusion of history

of national personalities and revolutionaries in the NCERT text books. He passionately

pleaded that the new generations need to know the great sacrifice of the celebrities of

our nation in the yester­years, who fought for the liberation from English Rule, such as

Shri Aurobindo Ghosh, Ashfaq Ullakhan, B.K.Dutt, Badal Gupta, Bagha Jatin

Mukherjee, Barinder Ghosh, Batukeshwar Dutt, Benoy Krishna Basu, Bhagat Singh,

Chandra Shekhar, Dinesh Gupta, Dr. Saifudin Kitchlew, Jatindra Nath Das, Kalpana

Dutt, Kartar Singh, Khudiram Bose, M.N.Roy, Madam Bhikaji Cama, Madan Lal

Dhingra, Shyamji Krishna Varma, Obeidulla Sindhi, Prafulla Chaki, Pritilata Waddedar,

Raja Mahendra Pratap, Ram Prasad Bismil, Rani Gaidinliu, Rash Bihari Bose,

Sachindra Nath Sanyal, Savarkar, Sohansingh Bhakna, Sukhdev, Suryasen, Swami

Vivekanand and Udham Singh. He claimed that nothing was found about these great

personalities, who inspired generations. He said it was not appropriate to give 37

pages to cricket and history of cloth, but nothing on the lives of national freedom

fighters. He submitted a table in which the photos of these great persons were inserted

with a tag ‘not found’ in NCERT text books.

4. Appellant objected to reducing the space for the heros like Nethaji Subhash Chandra

Bose in the textbooks. Prior to 2007 NCERT contained 500 words about Nethaji in 8th

class and 1250 words in 12th class text books. Now in 12th class only 87 words are

given and in 8th class Netaji’s history is totally missing. Not only of Nethaji, but also the

stories of 36 national revolutionaries including Chandrasekhar Azad and Sukhdev are

not there. All the lessons mentioning the revolutionary stories of these personalities

were later removed from these books. He criticized that NCERT syllabus pays a lip

service to the National Youth Icon Swamy Vivekenanda. He further criticized in his

second appeal:

“Numerically only 26 words have been employed to introduce Swami

Vivekananda and Ram Krishna Mission. Last but not the least there is no

CIC/CC/A/2014/000207­SA Page 2 mention of Sri Aurobindo­ Prophet of Nationalism in the current NCERT

Syllabus of History. And barring Bhagat Singh and B K Dutta there are no

revolutionaries mentioned in current history books of NCERT”.

5. He said that like apex court of India laid down the doctrine of basic structure of

Constitution, the CIC should safeguard the basic structure of the History of India in

NCERT.

6. The appellant said that he did not receive the reply claimed to have been sent by the

respondent authority on 16­6­2014. The appellant had also e­mailed the details of his

contentions.

7. The NCERT responded as follows:

“Following the adoption of NCF 2005, the Social Science Syllabus was revised

by a duly constituted Syllabus Revision Committee taking the National Focus

Group Position Paper on ‘Social Sciences’ as a point of reference and

‘Learning without Burden” as the overarching guiding principle. Accordingly the

textbook development committees constituted by the NCERT comprising

subject experts, pedagogues and practicing teachers developed textbooks in

various social science subjects including History to allow students ‘space’ and

‘opportunities’ to contemplate ‘wonder’ and ‘discuss in small groups’ events and

issues that highlight and explain the country’s multilayered pasts and take

interest in it to go for further studies in the subject while doing activities to gain

‘experimental learning’. Hence the syllabi and textbooks in history were drawn

up thematically and in more student friendly manner….” (Appellant complained

that the sentence broke in the middle and full information was not given)

8. In his second appeal dated 6­8­2014, the appellant submitted to the Commission that

what he got was not he sought and termed it as gross negligence and misguiding. He

complained against first appellate authority for not considering his appeal and for not

CIC/CC/A/2014/000207­SA Page 3 directing any information to be given. He wanted disciplinary action against the

concerned officials found responsible for not responding to his RTI application. He also

sought “Rs 5 lakh on account of expenses for the appeal proceedings and the mental

torture as a result of denial of important information”.

9. In response to first appeal received on 7.6.2014 Professor Neeraja Rashmi, Head of

the Department and Public Information Officer, wrote on 16th June 2014, as follows:

“…matters to which you have sought to know…do not particularly constitute a

query that could be suitably addressed under the provisions of the RTI. ..

Review and revision of syllabi and textbooks is an ongoing process in NCERT.

We have taken note of your suggestions regarding the History Textbooks of

NCERT. The same will be placed before the Textbook Development

Committees during the revision of text books for appropriate consideration”.

10. On 6th Jan 2016 during hearing of second appeal Prof Neeraja Rashmi

submitted a note claiming that second appeal copy was not furnished to them, that

response was sent within first 30 days, another response was given on 16th June 2014

after first appeal was filed. The appellant’s grievance petition dated 12th February 2013

was responded on 18th October 2013 and response of dept of Higher Education dated

17th January 2014 was available on Grievance Portal of Government of India. PIO

pleaded that there was no deliberate delay. Appellant’s earlier grievance letter against

paying lip service to Swamy Vivekananda dated 22nd January 2015 was received on

13th May 2015, which was responded to on 5th June 2015, which is also available on

Grievance Portal. It was also sent on email to appellant. The Grievance Action Status

contained the full response of NCERT, a quarter of which was not given. The portion

which did not reach the appellant is:

“So it goes without saying that not every bit of information could be provided in

the textbook as the basis on which the syllabi and textbooks were developed

was only illustrative and not exhaustive in orientation. However, as explained

CIC/CC/A/2014/000207­SA Page 4 above the syllabi and textbooks provide ample opportunities to students to

learn or to expand their knowledge base on any aspect of the Indian and World

Histories by taking up learning enrichment activities in consultation with

teachers”.

11. In the response to grievance, the NCERT under secretary S S Bisht explained

the objectives and methods of developing the lessons in the textbooks and concluded

that appellant’s grievance was redressed favourably.

12. From the responses it was clear that NCERT has explained how a lesson is

developed and placed in a textbook. The respondent officer submitted that all the

suggestions made by the appellant will be placed before the Syllabus Revision

Committee and would implement the committee’s recommendations as given by them.

Professor Neeraj Rashmi said that they could not interfere with the independent

committee which decides the content of lesson and textbook.

13. The appellant’s RTI application is more a criticism, or suggestion or opinion. it

could be a complaint also. The Commission opines that respondent authority should

have considered applicant’s RTI request as a complaint, and that he has a right to

know the action taken on his complaint. The appellants’ complaint deserves

consideration and a comprehensive response from the appropriate committee. It is the

duty of the public authority under Section 4(1)©, which say publish all relevant facts

while formulating important policies or announcing the decisions which affect the

public, and (d) provide reasons for its administrative or quasi judicial decisions to

affected persons. Hence to perform that duty, the NCERT is directed to provide

comprehensive response to the following questions, culled out of the RTI application,

appeals, responses of public authority and contentions of the both the parties:

CIC/CC/A/2014/000207­SA Page 5 a) Why the content of the life of Swami Vivekananda was reduced from 1250 words to 87

words in 12th Class textbook and why it is removed totally from 8th class textbook, if

what is pointed out by the appellant was true?

b) Why the national heroes found less space while giving 37 pages to subject of cricket

and history of cloth, if it is true?

c) How many of 36 national heroes listed in this order were mentioned in the lessons, if it

is not true that 36 heroes were ignored?

d) What are the efforts taken by the NCERT to make the lessons about the history and

national heroes strictly objective without any bias or orientation, as apprehended by the

appellant?

14. The respondent authority has to furnish comprehensive response to above

questions within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Commission rejects

the prayer for penal action and compensation, as the public authority’s response to RTI

and Grievance Cell was reasonable.

(M. Sridhar Acharyulu) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy

(U.C.Joshi) Deputy Secretary

Address of the parties :

1. The CPIO under the RTI Act, Govt of India National Council for Teacher Education, Wing­II Hans Bhawan, 1­Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg New Delhi­110002

CIC/CC/A/2014/000207­SA Page 6 2. Shri Lalan Kumar Mohalla­Maharshi Mehi Nagar Gali No.2, Godda­814133, Jharkhand

CIC/CC/A/2014/000207­SA Page 7