New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday asked Delhi University to set up an expert panel to examine if a chapter in a textbook for the history course should be removed for its "sacrilegious" references to Hindu god Hanuman and goddess Sita.

Acting on a plea pointing out the inclusion of the allegedly offending references, a bench of Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice P. Sathasivam and Justice J.M. Panchal asked university's vice chancellor Deepak Pental to examine the desirability of having the such potentially offending texts in the course.

It issued the direction on a joint plea by a group of eight people, including educationists, former diplomats, teachers and journalists besides political and socio-religious leaders.

Appearing for the petitioners, senior counsel M.N. Krishnamani told the court about the inclusion of "sacrilegious material" for the graduation degree course in history.

He said the university teaches its second year History (Hons) students that "Lord Hanuman was a henchman of Lord Rama" and "the little monkey was a womaniser".

Krishnamani said that the compulsory course material describes Sita as "unfaithful to Rama" and as having been "seduced by Ravana and Laxman".

These references are from "Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation", written by late critic A.K. Ramanujan, an essay that appears as a chapter of the book, "Many Ramayanas: The Diversity of Narrative Tradition in South Asia", edited by Paula Richman.

Krishnamani said the "offending" course material is being thrust upon the history students since 2005. He told the court that earlier his clients had moved the Delhi High Court seeking removal of the "offensive" course material.

On their plea, erstwhile Justice Manmohan Sarin of the high court had asked the vice chancellor to examine the desirability of having the controversial material in the History course, said Krishnamani.

But later after Justice Sarin's transfer to the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, another bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the plea saying it cannot be heard by the court.

The petitioners have come to the apex court in appeal against the high court ruling. IANS