What is the central question in this case?

Can the State, using its executive power, prescribe school textbooks before a statute exists, and is that policy valid under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)?

What did the Court say about executive power?

Under Article 162, the State may act where it has legislative competence, even without a statute, so long as it does not breach individual rights.

Did the Board have power to prescribe textbooks?

No. The Board could set courses, but making textbooks obligatory was not given by the 1959 Act or 1965 regulations—so it was ultra vires.

Were earlier prescriptions protected by the 1973 Act?

Yes. Section 4(2) continued earlier State prescriptions until changed under the Act.

Why was the 24 May 1973 notification invalid?

Because there was no prior consultation with the Board as Section 4(1) required; talking only to the Chairman was not enough.

Did the policy violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g)?

No. No publisher has a right to have books prescribed. The move to nationalized textbooks was not discriminatory or arbitrary.

NARAINDAS INDURKHYA V. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (1974 AIR 1232)

Supreme Court of India India 1974 AIR 1974 SC 1232 Education & Admin Law ~7 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Location: India Publish Date: 23 Oct 2025 Slug: naraindas-indurkhya-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh

Jump to

SEO Snapshot

CASE_TITLE: Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: textbook prescription power; Article 162; Article 14; Article 19(1)(g)
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: ultra vires; Board of Secondary Education; 1973 Act; Section 4
PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-23
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: naraindas-indurkhya-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh
Canonical: https://thelaweasy.com/naraindas-indurkhya-v-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh/

Quick Summary

The Court drew a simple line: the State can prescribe textbooks using executive power (Art. 162) if it does not break anyone’s rights. The Board can set courses, but it cannot force schools to use a book unless a law gives that power. Earlier State prescriptions were saved by the 1973 Act. A later State notification failed because it skipped the mandatory consultation step. No publisher has a right to get their books prescribed; the policy was not discriminatory.

Issues

Could the State prescribe textbooks under executive power before a statute?
Did State/Board textbook choices break Article 14 or Article 19(1)(g) rights of publishers?

Rules

Article 162 (Executive Power): State may act where it has legislative competence, even without a statute, if no rights are breached.
Ultra Vires (Statutory Bodies): A Board can do only what its Act or necessary implication permits. Beyond that = invalid.

Facts (Timeline)

Publisher: Naraindas Indurkhya printed and sold school textbooks in MP.

1959 Act: Board of Secondary Education set up; could fix courses, not textbooks.

Selection Rounds: Experts reviewed private books. Petitioner’s books were rejected as substandard.

1971 Policy: State backed “nationalized” books via the Textbook Corporation.

1973 Act: Section 4(1) empowered State to prescribe textbooks; Section 4(2) kept old State prescriptions alive.

28 Mar 1973: Board recommended/prescribed books for 1976 HSSC exams.

24 May 1973: State prescribed more books, claiming it had consulted the Board.

Writ: Petitioner alleged Article 14 & 19(1)(g) breaches; asked for relief.

Arguments

Petitioner (Publisher)

Board/State acted arbitrarily; my books were unfairly rejected.
Forced prescriptions hurt my right to trade (Art. 19(1)(g)).
Board had no power to prescribe textbooks; actions were ultra vires.

Respondent (State/Board)

Under Art. 162, the State could prescribe books even before the 1973 Act.
No publisher has a right to get prescribed; quality control is a valid aim.
No discrimination; policy serves students and standards.

Judgment

State’s executive power upheld: It could prescribe textbooks before the 1973 Act (if rights not breached).
Board’s limits: Board could not make textbooks compulsory—this was beyond its statute (ultra vires).
Carry-forward: Earlier State prescriptions continued under Section 4(2) of the 1973 Act.
Consultation flaw: The 24 May 1973 State notification was invalid—no prior consultation with the Board as required (Chairman alone is not enough).
Constitutional claims: Section 4 was valid; policy was not arbitrary; no violation of Articles 14 or 19(1)(g).

Ratio Decidendi

Executive power can fill gaps until law speaks, but statutory bodies must stay within their Act. “Recommend” ≠ “Prescribe.” When the statute demands prior consultation, it must be real and with the Board, not just its head.

Why It Matters

Shows how Article 162 works in day-to-day governance.
Clarifies powers of education boards vs State Government.
Explains why consultation clauses are more than a formality.

Key Takeaways

State may prescribe textbooks via Art. 162.

Boards cannot go beyond their statute.

Recommend ≠ Prescribe (binding).

Consultation must be genuine and prior.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: TEXT = The State acts (Art. 162) • Exceeding statute is ultra vires • X-consult = invalid • Tie-in via Section 4(2)

Power Check: State can fill gaps; Board must stay within its Act.
Binding Check: “Prescribed” binds; “recommended” guides.
Process Check: Consultation first, with the Board, not just its chief.

IRAC Outline

I — Issue

Executive power to prescribe textbooks pre-statute; validity under Arts. 14 & 19(1)(g).

R — Rule

Art. 162 allows action within competence; statutory bodies cannot exceed their enabling law; consultation when statute requires.

A — Application

State’s pre-Act prescriptions valid; Board’s binding prescriptions ultra vires; later State notification invalid without proper consultation.

C — Conclusion

State power upheld (with limits); no Art. 14/19(1)(g) breach; process must be followed.

Glossary

Executive Power (Art. 162): Power of the State to act where it can also make laws, unless a statute says otherwise.
Ultra Vires: An action outside the legal powers given by a statute.
Prescribed vs Recommended: Prescribed = must use; Recommended = optional guidance.
Consultation: A real, prior discussion with the authority named in the law (here, the Board).