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

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

UGC's introduction of 'Jyotir Vigyan' as a university course, based on recommendations of its Expert Body and absent violation of any statutory provision, does not warrant interference from courts, which are not competent to adjudicate academic matters; prescription of such courses does not saffronise education nor violate secularism.

Parties
Appellant: P.M. Bhargava; Appellant: K. Subash Chandra Reddy; Appellant: Chandana Chakrabarti; Respondent: University Grants Commission; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court (w.p. No. 7353 of 2001)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Academic Autonomy, Curriculum Policy, Secularism, Judicial Review of Academic Matters
Education Law Constitutional Law Academic Autonomy Curriculum Policy Secularism Judicial Review of Academic Matters

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P.M. Bhargava

Appellant

K. Subash Chandra Reddy

Appellant

Chandana Chakrabarti

Appellant

University Grants Commission

Respondent

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal From Andhra Pradesh High Court (w.p. No. 7353 of 2001)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the introduction of 'Jyotir Vigyan' (Vedic Astrology) as a course of study in universities violates statutory provisions or the concept of secularism under the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether courts can interfere with curriculum decisions taken by academic expert bodies

Ratio Decidendi

UGC's introduction of 'Jyotir Vigyan' as a university course, based on recommendations of its Expert Body and absent violation of any statutory provision, does not warrant interference from courts, which are not competent to adjudicate academic matters; prescription of such courses does not saffronise education nor violate secularism.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs