[FONT="][TABLE="width: 80%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Supreme Court Of India[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]JUDGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"] [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[/FONT]
Order
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.
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
Amendment's establishment of religion clause, where state
officials charged with implementing the statute fail to identify a
clear secular purpose for it. Even though the statute's stated
purpose is to protect academic freedom, it violates the
establishment clause where the evidence shows that the statute
is primarily designed either to promote a particular religious
tenet or to prohibit the teaching of a scientific theory disfavored
by certain religious sects.
344. Wearing of religious garb by teachers : According to
some decisions, the wearing by teachers in the public schools of
clothing distinctive of some religious order is violative of a
constitutional provision forbidding the use of public money in
support of any school or institution in which any sectarian
doctrine is taught or forbidding sectarianism in public schools.
And it has been held that the prohibition of the wearing of any
sectarian costume, either by regulation or statute is valid. On
the other hand, other decisions hold that the mere wearing of
religious garb by teachers, where there is no attempt to give
instruction in religious or sectarian subjects, is not violative of
any constitutional provision, and that absent a prohibiting
statute or regulation, religious garb may be worn by teachers in
public schools.
345. Use of school as place of worship or for religious
purposes, generally
Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court has seen fit to require
a school district to open its doors to nonstudents who wish to
use school facilities for the purpose of conducting religious
activities within a school. If the intended use of school
facilities is not required or authorized by statute, there is no
constitutional right to such use where a school district has not,
by policy or practice, permitted a similar use in the past.
However, where a school district denies an organisation the use
of its facilities for a religious purpose, having permitted other
religious uses of school property in the past, the denial may be
viewed as lacking viewpoint-neutrality, and may therefore be
deemed unconstitutional.
It has been stated that the power of school authorities to
prohibit the use of a schoolhouse for religious worship is well-
recognized. Some statutes authorising or providing for the
authorization of the use of public school premises for nonschool
purposes, but not specifically permitting religious meetings or
utilizations, have been construed by the courts as providing
authority for the use of the school building as a place for
holding church or other religious meetings at times when the
school is not in session.
In most cases in which persons applying to use a public
school building during nonschooltime for the holding of church
services or some other religious meeting have contested the
legality of the school authorities refusal to permit the particular
use of the school premises, the courts have found that the
school authorities acted lawfully in refusing the application.
An agreement entered by school officials to lease a high
school auditorium during noninstructional hours to a
nondenominational student study group for the purpose of
conducting a baccalaureate service featuring religious speakers
does not violate the Establishment Clause, where :
? the school board maintains an "open forum" policy toward
all civic, private, and student groups, both religious and
nonreligious, which seek to use its facilities during
noninstructional hours;
? allowing the service to occur in the school auditorium
would not have the primary effect of advancing religion,
particularly since the school board had already formally
and publicly dissociated itself from the baccalaureate
service and refused to lend any financial support to the
sponsoring group, and faculty and board members, while
invited to attend, would not be involved in any aspect of
the service either in their official or personal capacities;
and
? the school board would have a minimal role in custodial
oversight of the service.
Under the federal Equal Access Act, a school which
provides a limited open forum by allowing noncurriculum-
related student groups to meet on school premises during
noninstructional time cannot discriminate among groups on the
basis of the content of speech. A public high school violates
the Equal Access Act by denying students permission to form a
Christian club which would meet on school premises during
noninstructional time for purposes of Bible study, where the
school's existing student groups include a number which are
noncurriculum related.
Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a decision of US
Supreme Court in Susan Epperson et al., v. State of Arkansas and the
summary of the decision as reported in 21 L Ed 2d 228 is being reproduced
below :.
"A public school biology teacher in Arkansas, faced with
the dilemma that if she used a new textbook she would
presumably teach a chapter therein on the Darwinian theory of
evolution and thus be subject to dismissal for committing a
criminal offence in violation of the Arkansas statute prohibiting
any teacher in the state schools from teaching such theory,
instituted an action in the state Chancery Court seeking a
declaration that such statute was void and enjoining the state
officials from dismissing her for violation of the statute. A
parent of children attending the public schools intervened in
support of the action. The Chancery Court held that the statute
violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, but on appeal the Supreme Court of Arkansas
reversed, sustaining the statute as an exercise of the state's
power to specify the curriculum in public schools, while
expressing no opinion on whether the statute prohibited any
explanation of the theory of evolution or merely prohibited
teaching that the theory was true. (242 Ark 922, 416 SW2d
322)
On appeal, the United States Supreme Court reversed.
In an opinion by FORTAS, J., it was held, expressing the views
of seven members of the court, that the statute was contrary to
the mandate of the First, and in violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as conflicting with the constitutional prohibition
of state laws respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
BLACK, J., concurred in the result, but expressed the
view that it was doubtful whether the case presented a
justiciable controversy, and that, assuming that it did, either the
statute should be struck down as too vague to enforce, or the
case should be remanded to the Arkansas Supreme Court for
clarification of its holding and opinion.
HARLAN, J., concurred in the result and in so much of
the court's opinion as held that the statute constituted an
"establishment of religion" forbidden to the states by the
Fourteenth Amendment, but disapproved, as obscuring the
holding, the court's extended discussion of the issues of
vagueness and freedom of speech despite its conclusion that it
was unnecessary to decide such issues.
STEWART, J., concurred in the result, expressing the
view that the statute was so vague as to be invalid under the
Fourteenth Amendment."
7. On the strength of the above mentioned authorities it has been
vehemently contended that teaching of "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.