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.