Holding

The Supreme Court held that astrology is at least partly a science, the UGC’s decision was within its statutory authority, and courts should not interfere with academic curriculum decisions, thus dismissing the appeal.

Summary

The petitioners filed a public‑interest writ in the Andhra Pradesh High Court seeking a mandamus to stop the University Grants Commission (UGC) from starting graduate and postgraduate courses in Jyotir Vigyan (Vedic Astrology). The High Court dismissed the petition as non‑maintainable, and the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court examined whether the UGC’s decision violated any statutory provision, the constitutional duty to develop scientific temper (Art. 51A(h)), or the principle of secularism, and whether the judiciary could interfere with academic curriculum decisions. Relying on the fact that astrology involves the study of celestial bodies and is at least partly scientific, and on precedents that courts should not meddle in academic matters, the Court held that the UGC’s expert committee’s recommendation was lawful. It further held that the inclusion of Jyotir Vigyan does not saffronise education nor contravene secularism. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Issues considered

Whether the introduction of Jyotir Vigyan as a university course violates any statutory provision or the Constitution, particularly the duty to develop scientific temper and the principle of secularism.
Whether the courts can interfere with the UGC’s decision on university curricula and the establishment of new courses.
Whether astrology qualifies as a science for the purpose of university education.

Legislation cited

University Grants Commission Act, 1956s. 5

Subjects

AstrologyJyotir VigyanUniversity Grants CommissionCurriculumSecularismScientific temperPublic interest litigationAcademic freedomBasic structure doctrineJudicial review

Judgment

A P.M. BHARGA VA AND ORS.
v.
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.

MAY 5, 2004

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU, CJ. AND G.P. MATHUR, J.]

Education :

'Jyotir Vigyan '-Astrology course-Introduction of-In universities-
C Validity of-Held: 'Jyotir Vigyan' is a study of science at least to some
extent- 'Jyotir Vigyan 'was introduced on the basis ofthe recommendation
of an Expert Body constituted by the UGC-As there was no violation of
any statutory provision, introduction of 'Jyotir Vigyan' as a course ofstudy
and award of degree in universities did not call for any interference-
D Prescription of 'Jyotir Vigyan' as a course of study neither saffronised the
education nor militated against the concept of secularism--Constitution of
India, 1950, Art. 51-A(h).

Curricu/um--Courses ofstudy-Jurisdiction ofcourts to determine-
Held: Courts are not experts in academic matters-It was not for the courts
•
E to decide as to what course should be taught in universities and what
slwuld be their curriculum.

The appellants filed a writ petition by way of a public interest
litigation in the High Court praying that a writ of mandamus be issued
F commanding the University Grants Commission (UGC) not to start
and give any funds for Graduate and Postgraduate Courses (B.Sc and
M.Sc) in 'Jyotir Vigyan'. The High Court dismissed the writ petition
summarily as not maintainable. Hence the appeal.

On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that Vedic Astrology
G was not a science and could not be introduced in University curriculum
as a scientific subject; that the impugned decision of the UGC was a
giant leap backwards and would erode and negate Article 51-A(h) of
the Constitution; and that the teaching of 'Jyotir Vigyan' would
saffronise the education and, therefore, it would erode the concept of
H secularism which is a basic feature of the Constitution.

186
P.M. BHARGAVA v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION 187

- On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the UGC was A
a multi-member body established under Section 5 of the UGC Act,
1956; that its members included University teachers and other persons
who were experienced and knowledgeable in various other fields; and
that the decision to start the 'Jyotir Vigyan' course was taken by an
Expert Body constituted by the UGC. B

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 C
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 D
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. E

2. Courts are not experts in academic matters and it is not for
them to decide as what i:ourse should be taught in university and what
should be their curriculum. (199-BJ

University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, AIR (1965) SC 491 and J.P. F
Kulshreshtha v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, [1980! 3 SCC 418,
relied on.

3. The precise question as to whether 'Jyotir Vigyan' should be
included as a course of study having been considered and examined by G
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[ H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 4. It is not possible to accept the appellants' contention that the
prescription of 'Jyotir Vigyan' as a course of study has the effect of
saffronising the education or th<1t 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.
B [200-B-C)

DAV College v. State of Punjab, [19711 2 SCC 269 and Santosh
AUl'/lar v. Secretwy Ministry of Human Resources, (19941 6 sec 579,
reUed on.

C Dr. K. Na(arajan v. Union of India, (WP No. 13540 of2001) (Mad.),
approved.

Susan Epperson v. State of Arkansas, 21 L Ed 2d 228, referred to.

D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5886 of
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.4.2001 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P.No. 7353 of 2001.

E Kirit N. Rawal, Solicitor General, Shanti Bhushan, Prashant Bhushan,
Nairinder Verma, Vishal Gupta, Sanjai Pathak, Shivangi, Maninder Singh,
Ms. Pratibha M. Singh, Ankur Talwar, Angad Mirdha, Kirtiman Singh,
Avijit Bhattacharjee, Mr. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, C.L. Sahu (NP) and
R.C. Kohli for the appearing parties.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

G.P. MA THUR, J. : I. 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
G 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 publil' interest litigation was filed in the t
High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying that a writ of mandamus be issued
H commanding the University Grants Commission not to start and give any
P.M. BHARGAVA v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION [G.P. MATIIUR, J] 189

funds for Graduate and Post-Graduate Courses (BSc. and M.Sc.) in Jyotir A
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 ~cience. The other petitioners were
Prof. K. Subash Chandra Reddy who was Head of Department of Political B
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 tlie year 2001 onwards in C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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. G

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 A11icle 226 H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A of the Constitution, the High Court would not interfere with the aforesaid
pollicy 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
B 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
C provable knowledge than with beliefs or opinions and it is defined as a
bra:nch of study which is concerne:d 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
D 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,
pammeters mentioned above. Learned counsel has also submitted that the
scientific community all over India has unanimously protested against the
E introduction ofVedic 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,
F 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 51 A 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
G 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
H passages from 68 American Jurisprudence 2d paragraphs 343-345 which
P.M. BHARGAVA v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 191

read ·as under: A
"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 impennissible state endorsement of a particular religious B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 ofreligion 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 F
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. G

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 H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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 ofreligious
B garb by teachers, where therf: 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.

c 345. Use uf
. school as place .of
purposes, generally
'
worship or for religious

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
D 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
E 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.

F 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
G 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.

H In most cases in which persons applying to use a public
P.M. BHARGAVA v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 193

school building during nonschooltime for the holding of church A
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.
B
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 : C

•!• 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; D
•!• allowing the service to occur in the school auditorium would
not have the primary effect ofadvancing religion, particularly
since the school board had already formally and publicly
dissociated itself from the baccalaureate service and refused E
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
F
·:· 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 G
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 H
1194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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 prohibit~d
teaching that the theory was true. (242 Ark 922, 416 SW2d 322)

F 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
G 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
H controversy, and that, assuming that it did, either the statute
P.M. BHARGAVA v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION [G.P. MATIIUR, J.] 195

should be struck down as too vague to enforce, or the case should A
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 B
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.
c
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 D
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.
E
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 F
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 G
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
H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A education ih 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
t@ denounce any such belief as being utterly unworthy of recognition. It
is submitted that education and instruction should, in a liberal and
B 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 c:olumns 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
C steps which were taken by the Commission before taking a final decision
fbr 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.
D
(ii) On August 14, 2000, the Chairman, UGC, constituted a nine
member Expert Committee to report and recommend on the subject of
qpening of 'Vedic Astrology' at the select universities. The expert
committee held its meetings and discussed the matter with different bodies
E and persons.

(iii) On January IO, 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
F 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.
G
(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.
H
P.M. BHARGAVA v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION [G.P. MATHUR, J] 197

The universities were requested to submit their proposals as per the A
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 B
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.
c
(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 D
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
~~ E
(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'. F
In paras 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, G
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 H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A universities like 8.Sc./M.Sc. in Electronic Media, Clinical Nutrition and
Dietetics, Water harvesting and Oceanography etc.

I 0. Before dealing with the contentions raised it will be useful to
understand the meaning of the word 'Astrology' as given in various
B dictionaries.
"The science or doctrine of stars, and formerly often used as
equivalent to astron'.lmy, 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
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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
H UGC constituted a nine-member Committee which after discussion and
P.M. BHARGAVA v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION [G.P. MATHUR, J.] 199

deliberations recommended opening of the departments of''.Jyotir Vigyan" A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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, [l 980]
3 sec 418 wherein it was held as under:
E
"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 F
academic ~atter 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 G
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 univer~ity is wrong as the accuracy or correctness H
200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 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
fur including the said course for study and award of degree in universities,
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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 ur.der:
F
"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
G of a11y great saint oflndia in relation to or the impact on the Indian
and world civilizations cannot be considered as making provision
for religious instructions."

In Sanlosh Kumar v. Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources,
H [1994] 6 sec 579 it was held that teaching of Sanskrit alone as an elective
P.M. BHARGA VA v. UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION [G.P. MA1HUR, J.] 20 I

subject can in no way be regarded as against secularism. The decision of A
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 B
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 of2001 C
(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 D
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 E
the view taken by the Madras High Court.

17. For the reasons discussed above, the appeal lacks merit and
hereby dismissed with costs.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed. F

-·