New Delhi, April 7 -- The Supreme Court on Monday told the Centre that the revision of the textbooks containing aspects about legal studies and judiciary should be extended to all classes without restricting it to Class 8, which became the subject matter of a suo motu proceeding following controversial remarks made in the Social studies textbook. With an oversight committee headed by a former Supreme Court judge already in place to suggest the framing of curriculum on legal studies and judiciary of textbooks in Class 8 and above, the top court said that such an exercise should not be restricted to few classes. "Tell the committee that their examination should not be restricted to Class 8 only. It can go up and down as there are certain issues regarding the textbooks," said a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi. The Centre represented by additional solicitor general KM Nataraj informed the court that pursuant to the last order of the court, the ministry of education on March 16 constituted an Oversight committee under justice (retd) Indu Malhotra. Nataraj said that the committee will collaborate with the National Judicial Academy at Bhopal for the revision and finalisation of curriculum of Class 8 and higher classes. He also informed the bench that pursuant to concerns raised by the court on the composition of the National Syllabus and Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC) has been reconstituted with the 20-member body under the chairmanship of former vice chancellor MC Pant and co-chaired by mathematician Manjul Bhargava, who is a professor at Princeton University. The court had sought changes in the NSTC composition after reference to 'corruption in judiciary' in the Social Science textbook of Class 8 was found to present a distorted image about judiciary in young minds of impressionable age. The textbook published by the NCERT was prepared by a team of three experts. The court had raised questions on their knowledge about the subject and blacklisted them from being engaged by the government or its institutions in any capacity. After their counsel told the court they are eminent experts and not "fly-by-night academics", the court agreed to consider their applications after two weeks....