http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

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 "Jyotir Vigyan",  (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. Chandana Chakrabarti 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 "Jyotir Vigyan" 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 "Jyotir Vigyan" 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.      

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

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 "Jyotir Vigyan".  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

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 :

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

?       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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

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 "Jyotir Vigyan" 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 ’Jyotir Vigyan’ 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 "Jyotir Vigyan" instead  of ’Vedic Astrology’ in universities for course studies and research  leading to the award of  certificate, diploma, degrees \026 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

(v)     On February 23, 2001, proposals were invited from the various  universities on the basis of these guidelines for setting up of  departments of ’Jyotir Vigyan’ 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 Jyotir Vigyan 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 ’Jyotir Vigyan’ 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 ’Jyotir Vigyan’ 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 ’Jyotir Vigyan’.  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  ’Jyotir Vigyan’ and while doing so, they may prefer to include among  other subjects - Astronomy, Cosmology and Mathematics etc. besides  ’Jyotir Vigyan’ 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 ’Jyotir Vigyan’ 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 \026 the  forecasting of earthly and human events by means of observing  and interpreting the fixed stars, the sun, the moon and the  planets \026 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)]"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

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 "Jyotir Vigyan"  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. Govinda Rao 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 Jyotir Vigyan as a course  of study in the university is wrong as the accuracy or correctness of  the  subject, namely Jyotir Vigyan has not been established by the scientific tests  or experiments.  The precise question as to whether Jyotir Vigyan 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 Jyotir Vigyan 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

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 ’Jyotir Vigyan’ 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 ’Jyotir Vigyan’ 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.