Case: State Of M.P &amp; Anr. Etc Vs. Ram Raghubir Prasad Agarwal &amp; Ors

4. The respondent before us who was the petitioner before the High Court - is a private publisher. It may be cynical to say that text-books are commodity for consumers of schools education and there is big money in the trade especially when the private sector in the book business has been enjoying a ready market provided by the proliferation of schools and the obligatory purchase of text-books, once Government prescribes them. So, behind the veil of educational excellence, formulation of syllabi and competent text-books is the vast profit pouring into private publishers. In our system, unalloyed public interest litigation, though organisation crusading in the field, is yet a consummation devoutly to be wished,  and private vested interests are the vociferous ventriloquists of public causes. Democratic participation in the justice process gains reality only when popular organs blossom from the desert and enter the litigative oasis with fighting faiths.5. Here the respondent successfully challenged before the High Court the validity of the prescription of the States text-book for Rapid Reading,  an item in the syllabus for Secondary schools. Once Government books were chased out, the respondent filled the vacuum since prior to the entry of the State his book on the subject had admittedly been legally in vogue. The State has, by special leave, come up in appeal and secured a stay of operation of the judgment of the High Court, and its books are back in circulation in the schools. A brief calendar of events shows that since the opening of schools this academic year Government text-books have been in use uptil now, barring for about a month between the judgment of the High Court and the stay ordered by this Court. This bears upon moulding the relief since the benign power under Art. 226 is a special instrument of justice which, with flexible pragmatism and genius for equality inhibits social trauma even while upholding individual rights. The writ jurisdiction is geared to community good.

Reasoning:
S. 5, therefore, makes it perfectly legitimate for the State Government to undertake the preparation, printing and distribution of text-books itself or cause them to be so done through such agency as it may deem fit and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed. In short, the relevant provision creates a facultative public sector for text-book production and distribution. What is significant to note is that the departure from the private sector and the "nationalisation" of text-book manufacture may be undertaken only if the State Government "considers it necessary so to do". Once it comes to that judgment, the competence to deprive the private sector and entrust to the public sector is beyondwe do not think that it is necessary to embark upon the labyrinthine details or prolix analyses which have engaged the learned Judges of the High Court. Nor do we think that extensive or intensive consideration of the decision in Naraindass case (AIR 1974 SC 1232 ) is called for since its ratio is clear and does not come in for serious application in the present dispute. In this view, we proceed to specificate the precise issues pertaining to the decision as to whether the production and distribution of text-books by the State Government , on its own, is liable to be voided on the score of any fatal statutorythere is any breach, the next question is whether such non-compliance speels invalidation. of the text-books altogether. Finally, assuming all the points against the State Government, should the Court make a realistic appraisal of the situation as it exists currently and would the relief appropriately so that the student community, which has to take the examinations in a couple of months or so, may not be obliged to switch text-books belatedly in taking their examinations. The ultimate concern of the judicial process is not to guarantee the profit of the private producers or to condone every executive sin but, within statutory parameters, to promote the educational welfare of the studentduplex challenge once disposed of, the other disputes do not merit much discussion. Naraindas (AIR 1974 SC 1232 ) (supra), heavily relied on by the respondent, is impeccable law but inapplicablethis be valid, no. syllabus, no. text-book; and no. text-book, the status quo ante; and the book of the respondent being admittedly extant immediately before, it gains legal re-incarnation and all the students shall have to do rapid reading of his book for which they must first buythis angle, we are not satisfied that for so elusive a subject as Rapid reading, particularise or perish should be the test. The absence of syllabus cannot defeat the case of the State. We stress, however, that functionally speaking, the syllabus must tell the publishers and pundits in the concerned field sufficient to enable them to help Government under S. 4 to choose text-books. If this minimum is not complied with the court will use the lancet and issue an appropriatespeaking, we are satisfied that publication means more than mere communication to concerned officials or Departments. To publish a news item is to make known to people in general; "an advising of the public or making known of something to the public for a purpose" (Blacks Legal Dictionary, p. 1386). In our view, the purpose of S. 3 animates the meaning of the expression publish. Publication is the act of publishing anything; offering it to public notice, or rendering it accessible to public scrutiny...... an advising of the public; a making known of something to them for a purpose, " Logomachic exercises need not detain us because the obvious legislative object is to ensure that when the Board lays down the syllabi it must publish the same so that when the stage of prescribing text-books according to such syllabi arrives, both the publishers and the State Government and even the educationists among the public may have some precise conception about the relevant syllabi to enable Government to decide upon suitable text-books from the private market or compiled under S. 5 by the State Government itself. In our view, therefore, "publication " to the educational world is the connotation of the expression. Even the student and the teaching community may have to know what the relevant syllabus for a subject is, which means wider publicity than minimal communication to the departmental officialdom.22. If this view be sound, the State Government has failed to comply with the requisite of publication of the syllabus before prescribing the text-books. On that ground alone the order of the Government prescribing text-books must fail because the condition preceding such prescription, namely, publishing of the syllabi has not been complied with. We confine our observations only to the item relating to "Rapid Reading" so that there is no. need for reopening other subjects and syllabi and to create chaos or uncertainty.Necessarily publication is important and we should insist that the State Government should not dismiss it as a ritual of littlewe have earlier indicated, but may repeat for emphasis that there is an object in publishing the syllabi and this public purpose will be stultified to the prejudice of the school-going community if the syllabi are not made known to the public generally. Only when they come to know about the syllabi prescribed, representatives in the educational field or in the public sector may be able to tell the State government what type of text-books are available, what kinds of books will make for excellence in teaching and what manner of material will promote the interests of the students in ;the subjects of study. If there are existing text-books, Government may give consideration for them or may invite opinion of experts on their worth, Government may pay attention to the cost of the books so made available, their readability, their design and arrangement, the impression that they may produce on the plastic minds and a host of other factors. All these possibilities may be frustrated if the syllabi are not published.25. What has been done in the present case by the State Government is to exercise its power under S. 5 to prepare, print and distribute text-books of its own compilation. Certainly, this is well within the power of Government under S. 5 To dispel misapprehension we emphasise that no. private publisher has a right under S. 4 that his text-book shall be prescribed or necessarily considered by Government. No. such right as is claimed by the respondent-publisher has, therefore, been violated by the State Government. We upset Governments text-books, not because the respondent-publisher has a right to have his books necessarily considered by the Government, but because the syllabi have not been published prior to the prescription ofdo not think that the Court should sit in judgment over Government decisions in these matters save in exceptional cases. The law is complied with if Government has before undertaking action under S. 5, bestowed consideration on matters of relevance which may vary from time to time and from subject to subject. We need hardly say that Government may like to avoid expenditure from the public exchequer if books, inexpensive and qualitively acceptable, are easily available. The decision is that of the Government and it has a wide discretion. Publishers have no. right to complain, and if the mind of the Government has been relevantly applied to the subject, courts must keep their hands off.We have reached the finale. What remains is to crystallise the conclusions and to formulate the directions. The syllabus for rapid reading is not bad as falling short of definitional needs, although it is desirable for the Board to be more expressive when laying it down. Willful vagueness in syllabi will invite an adverse verdict. Rapid reading, as a rubric, is itself, somewhat slippery as a substantive topic and so the syllabus for it also may share that trait. The new plea urged specifically for the first time at the argument stage in this Court (and controverted by the State) that no. syllabus has been laid down, as a fact, for Rapid Reading is too late to be permitted.30. The syllabus for Rapid Reading suffers invalidation under S. 3 because it has not been published. The publication must precede the prescription of text-books under S. 4 or their preparation under S. 5. Here the case of the State shows that the syllabus was published only on June 30, 1978, while the text-books were prescribed in October 1977. So Ss. 3 and 4 have been breached and a fresh decision by Government prescribing text-books for Rapid Reading must be taken.31. We are not disposed, even as in the case of the plea of no. syllabus for Rapid Reading,  to consider the nascent discovery of SriUpadhyaya, counsel for the respondent, that the two text-books prescribed for Rapid Reading were not even in printed existence when they were prescribed.Judicial proceedings, especially at the earlier stages, should not ordinarily be allowed to become the scene of newly discovered points of contention. There is no. substitute for proper briefs and good home-work. Never can controverted facts be raised de novo here.