SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

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

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











Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top