ஜோதிடம் அறிவியலே
5-5-2004 உச்ச நீதிமன்ற தீர்ப்பு
Supreme Court Of India
|
JUDGEMENT INFORMATION
SYSTEM
|
|
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5886
of 2002
PETITIONER:
P.M. Bhargava&Ors.
RESPONDENT:
University Grants Commission &Anr.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/2004
BENCH:
CJI & G.P. Mathur.
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
G.P. MATHUR, J.
1. The
introduction of "JyotirVigyan",
(science of astrology) as a
course of study by the University Grants Commission is
subject matter of
challenge in the present appeal which has been preferred by
special leave
against the judgment and order dated April 27, 2001 of High
Court of
Andhra Pradesh.
2. A writ
petition by way of public interest litigation was filed in the
High Court of Andhra
Pradesh praying that a writ of mandamus be issued
commanding the University Grants Commission not to start and give any
funds for Graduate and Post-Graduate Courses (BSc. and
M.Sc.) in Jyotir
Vigyan. The petition
was preferred by Dr. P.M. Bhargava who was
founder Director of
Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, Hyderabad
and had received many awards including "Padma
Bhushan" in the year 1986
for his research, work and contribution to science. The other petitioners
were Prof. K. Subash Chandra Reddy who was Head of
Department of
Political Science, Osmania University, and Mrs. ChandanaChakrabarti
who
is a writer and consultant.
It was pleaded in the writ petition that the
University Grants Commission (for short 'the UGC') had taken
a decision to
start and give grants for Graduate and Post Graduate (B.Sc.
and M.Sc.)
courses in Vedic Astrology called "JyotirVigyan"
from the year 2001
onwards in various Universities and for teaching such a
course posts of one
Professor, one Reader, two Lecturers, one Library Attendant
and one
Computer Operator shall be created for which a non-recurring
grant of Rs.15
lakhs shall be given to the said department in the
Universities. Thus the total
expenditure which will be required in starting the course in
various
universities would run into several crores. The course in Vedic Astrology
cannot be termed as a course of scientific study as
astrology had never been
regarded as a science.
Science is defined as knowledge acquired through the
use of the scientific methods and the attributes of such
knowledge include
fallibility, verifiability and repeatability. Scientific truths are not dependant
on whims and fancies of individuals. That apart science is international and
if and when differences of opinion arise, scientists all
over the world work
honestly and diligently to resolve them. Astrology can not
be regarded as a
science, as it lacks the above mentioned features. It has never been
supported by any scientific research or study conducted
according to
stringent scientific procedure. It was further averred that the proposal to
introduce "JyotirVigyan" is a clear attempt on the
part of the respondents to
saffronise education and of thrusting their hidden agenda of
imposing Hindu
values in higher education.
It was also pleaded that research in the fields of
pure science was being affected for want of funds and
therefore there was no
justification in spending huge amounts on a pseudo-science
called Vedic
Astrology which is a giant leap backwards.
4. The High
Court after taking note of the meaning and other attributes
of Astrology held that Astrology is a subject which
according to opinion of
the experts require pursuit of further studies. It was a
policy decision and
while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226
of the
Constitution, the High Court
would not interfere with the aforesaid policy
decision of the UGC to start a course in
"JyotirVigyan". The High Court
was also of the opinion
that the averments made in the writ petition and the
relief sought showed that the UGC had not taken any final
decision in the
matter and therefore it should not interfere at this
stage. The writ petition
was accordingly dismissed summarily as not
maintainable.
5. Shri
Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the appellants has
submitted that Vedic Astrology is not a science and cannot
be introduced in
University curriculum as a scientific subject. Science is attributed with
provable knowledge than with beliefs or opinions and it is
defined as a
branch of study which is concerned either with a concerned
body of
demonstrated truths or with observed facts systematically
classified and
more or less colligated by being brought under general laws,
and which
includes trustworthy methods for discovery of new truth
within its domain.
For a field to be science the knowledge must be acquired
through the use of
scientific methods and should have attributes like
verifiability, fallibility and
repeatability. If
tested against these accepted and essential attributes of
science, Vedic Astrology will unarguably fail on most, if
not all, parameters
mentioned above.
Learned counsel has also submitted that the scientific
community all over India has unanimously protested against
the introduction
of Vedic Astrology as a scientific stream of study in
Universities. An appeal
signed by a large number of
reputed members of Indian Scientific
Community and others against the decision of the respondents to start
courses of Vedic Astrology was sent to the UGC wherein the
impugned
decision of UGC was termed as a giant leap backwards,
undermining
whatever scientific credibility the country has so far
achieved. It has also
been urged that the decision to introduce Vedic Astrology
would erode and
negate Article 51A of the Constitution which entrusts a
fundamental duty
upon the citizens of
the country to develop a scientific temper, humanism
and spirit of enquiry and reform. The
teaching of Vedic Astrology will
go
diametrically against fundamental duties as enshrined in the
Constitution.
Lastly, it has been urged that the attempt of the
respondents to introduce
courses of Vedic Astrology in the Universities is malafide
and it amounts to
saffronising education.
6. In
support of his submission Shri Shanti Bhushan has referred two
passages from 68 American Jurisprudence 2d paragraphs
343-345 which
read as under:
"343.
Constitutional implications of teaching creationism
and evolution: Legislation forbidding the teaching in public
schools of the Darwinian theory of evolution has been found
to
constitute an impermissible state endorsement of a
particular
religious viewpoint.
The mandated teaching of evolution as a
major theme of science is not a violation of the Establishment
Clause since evolution is not religion. The allegedly religious
aspects of evolution theory have been ruled too
insubstantial to
make its teaching an establishment clause violation,
particularly
in the absence of any official policy regarding evolution.
Teaching
or using books referring to evolution has been
found not to violate the free exercise rights of persons
believing
in the literal truth of the Biblical story of creation,
since the
mere exposure to objectionable ideas, without governmental
compulsion to affirm or deny a religious belief is
insufficient to
support a free exercise complaint.
A state
statute, providing that the public schools are not
required to teach either the theory of evolution or "creation
science", but that if either one is taught, the other
must also be
taught, advances a religious doctrine in violation of the
First
Amendment's establishment of religion clause, where state
officials charged with implementing the statute fail to
identify a
clear secular purpose for it. Even though the statute's stated
purpose is to protect academic freedom, it violates the
establishment clause where the evidence shows that the
statute
is primarily designed either to promote a particular
religious
tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory
disfavored
by certain religious sects.
344. Wearing of
religious garb by teachers : According
to
some decisions, the wearing by teachers in the public
schools of
clothing distinctive of some religious order is violative of
a
constitutional provision forbidding the use of public money
in
support of any school or institution in which any sectarian
doctrine is taught or forbidding sectarianism in public
schools.
And it has been held that the prohibition of the wearing of
any
sectarian costume, either by regulation or statute is
valid. On
the other hand, other decisions hold that the mere wearing
of
religious garb by teachers, where there is no attempt to
give
instruction in religious or sectarian subjects, is not
violative of
any constitutional provision, and that absent a prohibiting
statute or regulation, religious garb may be worn by
teachers in
public schools.
345. Use of school as place of worship or for
religious
purposes, generally
Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has seen fit to
require
a school district to open its doors to nonstudents who wish
to
use school facilities for the purpose of conducting
religious
activities within a school.
If the intended use of school
facilities is not required or authorized by statute, there
is no
constitutional right to such use where a school district has not,
by policy or practice, permitted a similar use in the
past.
However, where a school district denies an organisation the
use
of its facilities for a religious purpose, having permitted
other
religious uses of school property in the past, the denial
may be
viewed as lacking viewpoint-neutrality, and may therefore be
deemed unconstitutional.
It has
been stated that the power of school authorities to
prohibit the use of a schoolhouse for religious worship is
well-
recognized. Some
statutes authorising or providing for the
authorization of the use of public school premises for
nonschool
purposes, but not specifically permitting religious meetings
or
utilizations, have been construed by the courts as providing
authority for the use of the school building as a place for
holding church or other religious meetings at times when the
school is not in session.
In most
cases in which persons applying to use a public
school building during nonschooltime for the holding of
church
services or some other religious meeting have contested the
legality of the school authorities refusal to permit the
particular
use of the school premises, the courts have found that the
school authorities acted lawfully in refusing the
application.
An
agreement entered by school officials to lease a high
school auditorium during noninstructional hours to a
nondenominational student study group for the purpose of
conducting a baccalaureate service featuring religious
speakers
does not violate the Establishment Clause, where :
? the
school board maintains an "open forum" policy toward
all civic, private, and student groups, both religious and
nonreligious, which seek to use its facilities during
noninstructional hours;
? allowing
the service to occur in the school auditorium
would not have the primary effect of advancing religion,
particularly since the school board had already formally
and publicly dissociated itself from the baccalaureate
service and refused to lend any financial support to the
sponsoring group, and faculty and board members, while
invited to attend, would not be involved in any aspect of
the service either in their official or personal capacities;
and
? the
school board would have a minimal role in custodial
oversight of the service.
Under the federal Equal Access Act, a school which
provides a limited open forum by allowing noncurriculum-
related student groups to meet on school premises during
noninstructional time cannot discriminate among groups on
the
basis of the content of speech. A public high school violates
the Equal Access Act by denying students permission to form
a
Christian club which would meet on school premises during
noninstructional time for purposes of Bible study, where the
school's existing student groups include a number which are
noncurriculum related.
Learned counsel has
also placed reliance on a decision of US
Supreme Court in Susan Epperson et al., v. State of Arkansas
and the
summary of the decision as reported in 21 L Ed 2d 228 is
being reproduced
below :.
"A
public school biology teacher in Arkansas, faced with
the dilemma that if she used a new textbook she would
presumably teach a chapter therein on the Darwinian theory
of
evolution and thus be subject to dismissal for committing a
criminal offence in violation of the Arkansas statute
prohibiting
any teacher in the state schools from teaching such theory,
instituted an action in the state Chancery Court seeking a
declaration that such statute was void and enjoining the
state
officials from dismissing her for violation of the
statute. A
parent of children attending the public schools intervened
in
support of the action.
The Chancery Court held that the statute
violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, but on appeal the Supreme Court of Arkansas
reversed, sustaining the statute as an exercise of the state's
power to specify the curriculum in public schools, while
expressing no opinion on whether the statute prohibited any
explanation of the theory of evolution or merely prohibited
teaching that the theory was true. (242 Ark 922, 416 SW2d
322)
On
appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed.
In an opinion by FORTAS, J., it was held, expressing the
views
of seven members of the court, that the statute was contrary
to
the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as conflicting with the constitutional
prohibition
of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
BLACK,
J., concurred in the result, but expressed the
view that it was doubtful whether the case presented a
justiciable controversy, and that, assuming that it did,
either the
statute should be struck down as too vague to enforce, or
the
case should be remanded to the Arkansas Supreme Court for
clarification of its holding and opinion.
HARLAN,
J., concurred in the result and in so much of
the court's opinion as held that the statute constituted an
"establishment of religion" forbidden to the
states by the
Fourteenth Amendment, but disapproved, as obscuring the
holding, the court's extended discussion of the issues of
vagueness and freedom of speech despite its conclusion that
it
was unnecessary to decide such issues.
STEWART,
J., concurred in the result, expressing
the
view that the statute was so vague as to be invalid under
the
Fourteenth Amendment."
7. On the strength
of the above mentioned authorities it has been
vehemently contended that teaching of
"JyotirVigyan" would saffronise the
education as it is not a scientific study but something
peculiar to Hindus and
associated with Hindu religion and, therefore, it will erode
the concept of
secularism which is the basic feature of the Constitution.
8. A
counter-affidavit on behalf of the UGC has been filed in this Court.
It is averred therein that under the University Grants Commission
Act, 1956,
the UGC has been entrusted with the duty, inter alia, to recommend
measures for the improvement of university education. The
decision in
relation to academic matters are arrived at collectively by
the Commission,
which is a multi-member body established under Section 5 of
the said Act.
The members include persons, who are teachers in
universities and also
others who are experienced and knowledgeable in various
other fields. The
purpose of university education is multi-directional, its
object is to provide
structured instruction in all subjects of relevance and
interests. In a country
like India, there are various subjects in which instructions
need to be
imparted in a structured manner in view of the relevance of
these subjects to
society. For
example, various forms of medicines and treatments, which are
not prevalent in the western world, such as 'ayurvedic',
'unani' and 'tibia'
systems, are also parts of medical education in India. Indian wisdom, for
example, encompasses things, such as belief in rebirth and
cosmic existence.
Mysteries of nature have not been fully fathomed by the
human mind and
therefore it would not be proper to denounce any such belief
as being utterly
unworthy of recognition.
It is submitted that education and instruction
should, in a liberal and pluralistic society, must
accommodate as far as
possible all points of view and provide for all sections of
society. In fact a
number of National dailies and magazines carry astrological
columns as a
regular feature, which are read by large number of people
with interest.
9. The
counter-affidavit of UGC also gives details regarding various
steps which were taken by the Commission before taking a
final decision for
introducing 'JyotirVigyan' as a part of graduation,
post-graduation and
Ph.D. courses and they are as under:
(i) This
matter was first mooted on June 16,
2000.
(ii) On
August 14, 2000, the Chairman, UGC, constituted a nine member
Expert Committee to report and recommend on the subject of
opening
of 'Vedic Astrology' at the select universities. The expert committee
held its meetings and discussed the matter with different
bodies and
persons.
(iii) On
January 10, 2001, at its first meeting the Expert Committee
recommended opening of the departments of
"JyotirVigyan" instead
of 'Vedic Astrology' in universities for course studies and
research
leading to the award of
certificate, diploma, degrees
both in
undergraduate and post-graduate and Ph.D.
(iv) After the
expert committee examined the matter, it placed a set of
proposed guidelines, which were adopted by the Commission
on
January 25, 2001.
(v) On
February 23, 2001, proposals were invited from the various
universities on the basis of these guidelines for setting up
of
departments of 'JyotirVigyan' for providing teaching and
training in
the subject leading to certificate, diploma, undergraduate,
post-
graduate and Ph.D. degrees.
The universities were requested to
submit their proposals as per the guidelines, latest by
March 15, 2001.
The last date was later on extended to May 5, 2001.
(vi) On June
13, 2001, the second meeting of the Expert Committee
examined the proposals received from 41 universities for
opening of
departments of JyotirVigyan to conduct the degree courses in
Jyotir
Vigyan. The proposals
came from 16 States of the country. The
Committee recommended that the independent departments be
created
to conduct degree courses in 'JyotirVigyan' only in 20 out
of 41
universities who had applied for it.
(vii) On June
27, 2001, the Commission at its 397th meeting, approved the
recommendations of the Expert Committee and decided that the
independent departments of 'JyotirVigyan' be created at 20
selected
universities to conduct the courses leading to award of
B.A./B.A.
(Hons.)/M.A./Ph.D. degrees in 'JyotirVigyan'. The Commission also
decided that the aforesaid selected universities be allowed
to frame the
required syllabus for respective B.A. and M.A. degree
courses in
'JyotirVigyan' and while doing so, they may prefer to
include among
other subjects - Astronomy, Cosmology and Mathematics etc.
besides
'JyotirVigyan' as the main subject.
(viii) On July
21, 2001, the selected 20 universities were communicated the
decision of the Commission for opening of an independent
department
of 'JyotirVigyan' in their universities for conducting
courses leading
to award of B.A./B.A. (Hons.) M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in
'Jyotir
Vigyan'.
In pars
14 to 19 of the counter-affidavit details of the various other
courses introduced by UGC have been given which were
hitherto not being
taught as conventional subjects like Functional Hindi,
Functional Sanskrit,
Functional English, Tourism and Travel Management, Agro
Services,
namely, Animal Farming, Forestry & Wildlife Management,
Soil
Conservation & Water Management, Hill Agriculture,
Non-Conventional
Energy Sources, Dryland Agriculture, Rural Handicrafts,
Gemology &
Jewelry Designing,
Cosmetology etc. It is also averred that
UGC is
processing to introduce certain other subjects in degree
courses in selected
universities like B.Sc./M.Sc. in Electronic Media, Clinical
Nutrition and
Dietetics, Water harvesting and Oceanography etc.
10. Before
dealing with the contentions raised it will be useful to
understand the meaning of the word 'Astrology' as given in
various
dictionaries.
"The
science or doctrine of stars, and formerly often used
as equivalent to astronomy, but now restricted in meaning to
the
pseudo science which claims to foretell the future by
studying
the supposed influence of the relative positions of the
moon,
sun and stars on human affairs [Webster's New International
dictionary]
Either
a science or a pseudo science, astrology
the
forecasting of earthly and human events by means of
observing
and interpreting the fixed stars, the sun, the moon and the
planets has exerted a sometimes extensive and a sometimes
peripheral influence in many civilizations, both ancient and
modern. As a science,
astrology has been utilized to predict or
affect the destinies in individuals, groups or nations by
means
of what is believed to be a correct understanding of the
influence of the planets and stars on earthly affairs. As a
pseudo science, astrology is considered to be diametrically
opposed to the findings and theories of modern Western
science.[Encyclopedia Britannica (2nd edition)]"
11. According
to the above mentioned standard books Astrology is a
science which claims to foretell the future or make
predictions by studying
the supposed influence of the relative positions of the
moon, sun, planets and
other stars on human affairs. It, therefore, requires study of celestial
bodies,
of their positions, magnitudes, motions, and distances,
etc. Astronomy is a
pure science. It was
studied as a subject in ancient India and India has
produced great astronomers, long before anyone in the western
world
studied it as a subject.
Since Astrology is partly based upon study of
movement of sun, earth, planets and other celestial bodies,
it is a study of
science at least to some extent.
12. The
Counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the UGC shows that the UGC
constituted a nine-member Committee which after discussion
and
deliberations recommended opening of the departments of
"JyotirVigyan"
in universities for award of degrees. The Committee has
recommended to
create such courses only in 20 out of 41 universities which
had applied for
the same and the degree which would be awarded will be
B.A./B.A.(Hons.)/M.A./Ph.D.
The decision to start the course has been
taken by an expert
body constituted by the UGC. The courts
are not expert
in academic matters and it is not for them to decide as what
course should be
taught in university and what should be their
curriculum. This caution was
sounded in University of Mysore v. GovindaRao AIR 1965 SC
491 wherein
Gajendragadkar,J. (as His Lordship then was) speaking for
the Constitution
Bench held that it would normally be wise and safe for the
courts to leave
the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more
familiar with the
problems they face than the courts generally can be. In this case challenge
was made to certain appointments and the Bench held that
what the High
Court should consider is whether the appointment made by the
Chancellor
on the recommendation of the Board had contravened any
statutory or
binding rule or ordinance, and in doing so, the High Court
should show due
regard to the opinion expressed by the Board and its
recommendations on
which the Chancellor has acted. This principle was reiterated in J.P.
Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University 1980 (3)
SCC 418
wherein it was held as under:
"While
there is no absolute ban, it is a rule of prudence
that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of
academic
bodies. But
university organs, for that matter any authority in
our system are bound by the rule of law and cannot be law
unto
themselves. If the
Chancellor or any other authority lesser in
level decides an academic matter or an educational question,
the
court keeps its hands off; but where a provision of law has
to be
read and understood, it is not fair to keep the court
out."
The
above mentioned principle has been consistently followed by this
Court and it is not necessary to burden this judgment by
giving references of
those cases.
13. The
appellants do not allege breach of any statutory provision, rule or
regulation. Their
complaint is that the inclusion of JyotirVigyan as a course
of study in the university is wrong as the accuracy or
correctness of the
subject, namely JyotirVigyan has not been established by the
scientific tests
or experiments. The
precise question as to whether JyotirVigyan should be
included as a course of study having been considered and
examined by an
Expert Body of UGC and they having recommended for including
the said
course for study and award of degree in universities, it
will not be proper for
this Court to interfere with the aforesaid decision
specially when no
violation of any statutory provisions is demonstrated.
14. We are
unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the prescription of JyotirVigyan as a course
of study has the
effect of saffronising education or that it in any manner militates against
the
concept of secularism which is part of the basic structure
of the Constitution
and is essential for the governance of the country.
15. In DAV
College v. State of Punjab 1971 (2) SCC 269, challenge was
made to certain provisions of Guru Nanak University Amritsar Act (Act 21
of 1969) which made a
provision for study and research on the life and
teachings of Guru Nanak and their cultural and religious
impact in the
context of national and world civilisations on the ground
that such a
provision would propagate Sikh religion and would violate
the rights of the
writ petitioners therein guaranteed under Article 30(1) of
the Constitution.
Violation of Articles
14 and 19(1)(C) was also pleaded. The
Constitution
Bench repelled the challenge in the context of section 4(2)
of the relevant
Act which provided
for study and research on the life and teachings of Guru
Nanak and it was held
as under:
"Religious
instruction is that which is imparted for
inculcating the tenets, the rituals, the observances,
ceremonies
and modes of worship of a particular sect or
denomination. To
provide for academic study of life and teaching or the
philosophy and culture of any great saint of India in
relation to
or the impact on the Indian and world civilizations cannot
be
considered as making provision for religious
instructions."
In Santosh Kumar v. Secretary, Ministry of Human
Resources (1994)
6 SCC 579 it was held that teaching of Sanskrit alone as an
elective subject
can in no way be regarded as against secularism. The decision of the United
States Supreme Court cited by learned counsel for the
appellants can hardly
have any application here as teaching of 'JyotirVigyan' can
under no
circumstances be equated with teaching of any particular
religion. We are,
therefore, of the opinion that the challenge made to the
inclusion of Jyotir
Vigyan as a course of study on the ground that the same will
violate or
impinge upon the concept of secularism enshrined in the
Constitution has
therefore no merit and must
be rejected.
16. A similar
challenge to the inclusion of 'JyotirVigyan' as a course of
study was made by one Dr. K. Natarajan by filing WP no.
13540 of 2001
(Dr. K. Natarajan v.Union
of India) before
the Madras High
Court.
Mr. Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla who heard the writ
petition held that the
very purpose of
imparting education is to gain knowledge and therefore
there should be every scope for making a study on very many
subjects in
order to enrich ones craving for knowledge. Any such attempt from any
quarters in furtherance of that pursuit should not be
stultified. The learned
Judge further held that it was for the pupil concerned to
select any particular
field or subject in furtherance of his future career, and
merely because the
subject has got its basis or origin traceable to some cult,
it cannot be held
that the same would only result in propagation of a particular religion. On
these findings the writ petition was dismissed. We are in agreement with the
view taken by the Madras High Court.
17. For the
reasons discussed above, the appeal lacks merit and hereby
dismissed with costs.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Astrology is a science,
which claims to foretell the future or make predictions by studying the
supposed influence of the relative positions of the moon, sun, planets and
other stars on human affairs. It, therefore, requires study of celestial
bodies, of their positions, magnitudes, motions, and distances, etc. Astronomy
is a pure science. It was studied as a subject in ancient India and India has
produced great astronomers, long before anyone in the western world studied it
as a subject. Since Astrology is partly based upon the study of movement of
sun, earth, planets and other celestial bodies, it is a study of science at
least to some extent. [198-F-G] Webster's International Dictionary and
Encyclopedia Britannica, 2nd Edn., referred to. 2. Courts are not experts in
academic matters and it is not for them to decide as what course should be
taught in university and what should be their curriculum. [199-B] University of
Mysore v. GovindaRao, AIR (1965) SC 491 and J.P. Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor,
Allahabad University, [1980] 3 SCC 418, relied on. 3. The precise question as
to whether `JyotirVigyan' should be included as a course of study having been
considered and examined by an Expert Body of the UGC and they having
recommended for incfuding the said course for study and award of degree in
universities, it will not be proper for this Court to interfere with the aforesaid
decision specially when no violation of any statutory provisions is
demonstrated. [200-A-B] 4. It is not possible to accept the appellants'
contention that the prescription of `JyotirVigyan' as a course of study has the
effect of saffronising the education or that it in any manner militates against
the concept of secularism which is a part of the basic structure of the
Constitution and is essential for the governance of the country. [200-B-C] DAY
College v. State of Punjab, [1971] 2 SCC 269 and Santosh Kumar v. Secretary
Ministry of Human Resources, [1994] 6 SCC 579, relied on. Dr. K. Natarajan v.
Union of India, (WP No. 13540 of 2001) (Mad.), approved. Susan Epperson v.
State of Arkansas, 21 L Ed 2d 228, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No. 5886 of 2002.
