1. Challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 148-B of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, alleging violation of the right to manage religious affairs under Article 26(b). (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 40
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.R.Das, C.J.I., K.N.Wanchoo, N.H.Bhagwati, P.B.Gajendragadkar, S.K.Das, JJ.
Sardar Sarup Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Case No. : 13 of 1959
Date of Decision : 4/1/59
Advocates Appeared: Gutpa D. : Sikri S.M. : Singh Gopal : Singh Harnam : Singh Sadhu
Advocates:
D.GUTPA, Gopal Singh, Harnam Singh, S.M.Sikri, SADHU SINGH
D.GUTPA, Gopal Singh, Harnam Singh, S.M.Sikri, SADHU SINGH
The right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs under Article 26(b) covers essential religious practices; however, the method of electing members to a board for the administration of religious properties is an administrative matter, not a religious one, and can be regulated by law.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 26(b) and 26(d) - Act for administration of religious shrines - Sections 43, 43-A, 125, 129, 133, 134, and 148-B - Right of religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion - Distinction between administration of property and matters of religion - The administration of property by a religious denomination is to be exercised in accordance with law and can be regulated by the legislature, whereas the right to manage affairs in matters of religion is a fundamental right that no legislature can take away. (Para 7)
(B) Matters of religion - Freedom of religion is not confined to religious beliefs only but extends to essential religious practices. A religious denomination enjoys complete autonomy in deciding which rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold. (Para 7)
(C) Election of management board - The method of electing members to a board for the administration of religious properties, whether by direct or indirect election, is a matter of administrative convenience and expediency and not an essential religious practice. Such arrangements do not violate the right to manage affairs in matters of religion under Article 26(b). (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of a temporary and transitional provision in an amending act. The provision allowed for the inclusion of deemed members and the election of additional members to a management board via a limited electorate for a specific region. The petitioners contended that this violated the fundamental right of the religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion, arguing that only direct elections by the entire community are permissible.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the contested provision relates to the composition and representation of the board, which is an administrative matter. It does not interfere with the essential beliefs or practices of the faith. The administration of property is distinct from the management of religious affairs and can be regulated by the legislature.
Issues: Whether the introduction of new members into a management board through deemed membership and indirect elections violates the fundamental right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs in matters of religion under Article 26(b) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right under Article 26(b) applies to essential religious practices. The method of electing representatives to a board for the administration of religious properties is not a matter of religion but a matter of law and administrative expediency. Consequently, the use of a limited electorate or the designation of interim members does not constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion.
Result: Petition fails and is dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners contend that the right to manage religious affairs under Article 26(b) necessitates direct election of representatives by the entire religious denomination. (Para 6 )
3. The court distinguished between the administration of religious property, which is subject to law, and essential religious practices, which are protected as fundamental rights. (Para 7 , 8 )
4. The method of electing representatives to a management board is a matter of administration and convenience, not an essential religious practice protected under Article 26(b). (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Petition dismissed with costs. (Para 13 )
6. What is the legal distinction between Article 26(b) and Article 26(d) of the Constitution regarding religious denominations?
Article 26(b) protects the right to manage affairs in matters of religion as a fundamental right, whereas Article 26(d) allows the administration of religious property to be regulated by law. (Para 7 )
7. What constitutes matters of religion under Article 26(b) of the Constitution?
Matters of religion include essential religious beliefs and practices regarded by the community as part of its religion, granting the denomination autonomy in deciding which rites and ceremonies are essential. (Para 7 )
8. Does the method of electing members to a religious management board constitute a matter of religion under Article 26(b)?
No. The court held that the principle of direct election or the specific method of representation is a matter of administration, convenience, and expediency, not an essential religious practice. (Para 9 , 10 )
9. Can a law be invalidated based on the political motives or the haste of the legislature in enacting it?
No. The court cannot investigate the motives of the legislature or the political wisdom of an action if the legislature is otherwise competent to enact the law. (Para 5 )
S.R.DASS, CJI.
(1) THIS is a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in which the petitioners challenge the constitutional validity of s. 148-B of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (Punjab VIII of 1925), hereinafter called the principal Act, the said section having been added to the principal Act by the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Act, 1959, hereinafter called the amending Act of 1959. The petitioners profess and practice the Sikh faith and they allege that they are interested in the maintenance and management of Sikh Gurdwaras, scheduled and notified under the principal Act. Their main contention is that s. 148-B violates the fundamental right granted under Art. 26(b) of the Constitution to every religious denomination or any section thereof including the Sikh denomination, ` to manage its own affairs in matters of religion `. The respondents to the petition are, firstly, the State of Punjab and, secondly,, President and twelve members of the Interim Gurdwara Board, Patiala, who under cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 148-B shall be deemed to be members of the Board constituted under s. 43 of the principal Act. That Board is now known by the name of the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee. The application has been contested before us by respondent No. 1 only, namely, the State of Punjab, on the ground that s. 148-B does not, in any way, violate the fundamental right granted to the petitioners or other members of the Sikh denomination under Art. 26(b) of the Constitution. Therefore, the only question for consideration before us is if S. 148-B of the principal Act does or does not contravene the fundamental right granted to the Sikhs under Art. 26(b) of the Constitution.
(2) WE shall presently set out the provisions of s. 148- B and also of some other relevant S. of the principal Act. But before we do that, it is necessary to state a few facts with regard to the passing of the amending Act of 1959. It has been stated before us that in or about the year 1919 there was considerable unrest amongst the Sikhs in the Punjab in respect of the management of their gurdwaras and shrines, and in 1922 an Act called the Sikh Gurdwaras and Shrines Act was passed; this did not satisfy the Sikhs and in 1925 the principal Act was passed, as its preamble states, ` for the better administration of certain Sikh gurdwaras and for enquiries into matters and settlement of disputes connected therewith `. The principal Act was amended from time to time. On 1/11/1956, there was merger of the erstwhile State of Patiala and the East Punjab States Union (hereafter called Pepsu in brief) with the State of Punjab. Sometime in February 1957 the government of the State of Punjab appointed an advisory committee to report as to whether the principal Act should be extended to the area which was formerly within Pepsu. In September 1957 the committee recommended in favour of such extension. On 8/04/1958, a bill called the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Bill, 1958, was introduced in the Punjab Vidhan Sabha and the Bill was sent to the regional committees constituted by an order of the President called the Punjab Regional Committees Order, 1957, made under el. (1) of Art. 371 of the Constitution. The regional committees dealt with the Bill and made certain recommendations. For the purposes of the application before us, it is unnecessary to go into details of the proceedings before the regional committees. Sometime in November 1958 there was a meeting of the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandbak Committee for the purpose of the annual election. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated before us that at this meeting there was a majority by a very small margin (three votes only) in favour of a particular group of Sikhs and against another group known as the ` Shiromoni Akali Dal`. Within one week, however, a notice was given for calling a meeting to consider the provisions of the amending Bill; this meeting could not, however, be held as an order of stay was obtained from the Judicial
