To return to the OP, though, while calling astrology a science is pretty sad -- and doubly so when it's not just Bombay, but they deferred to an earlier supreme court ruling -- essentially the courts ruled:
1. That it's ok for a university to offer a course in astrology.
2. That astrology columns and palm reading charlatans don't have to include a disclaimer that it's not proven to actually work.
The former is more or less the case in the west too. There are plenty of folks perfectly willing to sell you courses or a diploma. Frankly, even as a leftie, I'd say it's simply not the government's job to regulate that.
The latter is, as far as I understand, more of a consequence of the fact that their laws for advertising drugs do not cover stuff like astrology. I don't see how creative the court would need to get on the law's ass, to take a law for pills and such and apply it to astrologers.
Now I do find it kinda depressing that they managed to reach the correct decision via the most wrong reasoning, and ended up defining astrology as science although at least the latter case didn't even require that. But in the end so far the damage has been minimal, as they did arrive at the correct decision, or at least a correct interpretation of the existing laws.
