SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.M. Bhargava
Vs
University Grants Commission
Appeal (Civil) 5886 of 2002
(S. R. Babu and G. P. Mathur)
05/05/2004
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.
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 espondents 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 :
(i) 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;
(ii) 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
(iii) 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 no curriculum-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 no instructional time for purposes of Bible study, where
the school's existing student groups include a number which are no curriculum
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 "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 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 '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, 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 "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 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 , 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
civilizations 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 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.