Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has opposed the Public Interest Litigation in the Delhi High Court challenging the difference in curriculums of CBSE, ICSE, and State Board.

In its reply, the CBSE has stated that ‘Education’ being a subject of the ‘Concurrent List’ of the Constitution, and the majority of schools being under the jurisdiction of the State Governments, it is for the respective State/Union Territory Governments to frame syllabus, curriculum and conduct examinations for their schools.

“The National Curriculum Framework (NCF) developed by the NCERT as per the mandate of the National Policy on Education sets the guidelines and direction for the development of syllabi and textbooks at all the school stages. As a follow up to the NCF, curriculum, syllabi, text-books and other supplementary material are developed by NCERT”, it said in the reply.

It stated that the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERTs) and State Education Boards either adopt or adapt NCERT's model syllabi and textbooks or develop their own syllabi and textbooks based on NCF.

CBSE also stated that the Uniform Board/Syllabus across India does not take into account the local context, culture and language and that there is a national framework with flexibility for the emphasis of local resources, culture, and ethos.

“A child can better relate to a curriculum that is more closely related to his/ her life outside the school. Therefore, multiplicity of curricula and other educational resource is desirable in addition to a core common element”, it added.

The PIL is under consideration before a division bench comprising Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sanjeev Narula. 

The plea filed by Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay contends that the difference in the said curriculum is depriving students of equal opportunities to education in the spirit of Articles 14-16 of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner while contending that the “right to education” also implies the "right to equal education", suggested that a uniform curriculum across various boards of education could be implemented by a "National Education Council", which would have functions mutatis mutandis to that of the GST Council.

Furthermore, Upadhyay's plea stated, "Education Mafias are very powerful and have a very strong syndicate. They influence rules, regulations, policies & examinations. The questions asked in the competitive exams are not taught in government schools. So, parents are in double jeopardy".

It further contended that the “bitter truth is that school mafias don't want One Nation-One Education Board” and that “coaching mafias” and “book mafias” are also opposed to “One Nation-One Syllabus”.

The petitioner attributed the lack of a common education system up to the 12th standard to the said coaching and book mafias who, as per him, "have not only divided society among categories of EWS, BPL, MIG, HIG, and elite class but also are against the values of socialism, secularism, fraternity, and unity of the nation as enshrined in the Constitution".

Additionally, the plea submitted that a common syllabus and common curriculum in the mother language will not only achieve the code of a common culture, removal of disparity and depletion of discriminatory values in human relations but also will enhance virtues and improve quality of life, elevate thoughts, which advance the constitutional goal of an equal society.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v Union of India