P.M. BHARGAVA AND ORS. versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 186 · Decided: 05-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

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 of the 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 of study 
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 of study-Jurisdiction of courts 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 
A 
188 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
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, (W
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.