JUDGMENT :

HEMANT GUPTA, J.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 735 OF 2014 AND WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1116 OF 2019

1. The above writ petitions are preferred challenging the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014¹ [for short the ‘ HARYANA ACT ’] creating a separate juristic entity for the management of historical Gurdwaras in the State of Haryana mentioned in Schedule I; Gurdwaras having income of more than Rs. 20 lakhs in Schedule II and the Gurdwaras having income of less than Rs. 20 lakhs in Schedule III.

2. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Management Bill, 2014 (Bill No. 28-IIIA of 2014) provides that the Bill is an earnest effort to provide a legal procedure by which the Gurdwaras, owing to their origin and habitual use, regarded by the Haryana Sikhs as essentially pious places of worship, may be brought effectively and permanently under the exclusive control of the Sikhs of Haryana for their proper use, administration, control and financial management reforms to make it consistent with the religious views of the said community. It was pointed out that the Sikh Gurdwaras in the State are being governed by the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925² [for short the ‘1925 Act’] and the rules and regulations made thereunder, but in view of the demands of the Sikhs in the State of Haryana which were examined by two committees, it was decided to introduce the Bill in terms of powers conferred under Article 246 read with Schedule VII, List II, Entry 32 of the Constitution of India, as also in pursuance of Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966³ [for short the ‘1966 Act’]. It is thereafter, the HARYANA ACT was enacted which came into force on 14.7.2014.

3. The first writ petition has been filed by a resident of Haryana and an elected representative of Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee⁴ [for short the ‘SGPC’] from Kurukshetra. The ground of challenge is that the HARYANA ACT is against the constitutional provisions, the statutory provisions of the 1966 Act and is also divisive in its intention to create dissentions amongst the followers of the Sikh religion. The writ petition was subsequently amended to challenge the HARYANA ACT on the ground of infringement of fundamental rights conferred on the petitioner under Part III of the Constitution. The second writ petition has been preferred by the SGPC challenging the HARYANA ACT on almost similar grounds.

4. The State of Haryana and Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Managing Committee⁵ [for short the ‘Haryana Committee’] filed a counter affidavit controverting the stand of the petitioner whereas respondent No. 3-SGPC in the first writ petition supported the petitioner and, in fact, filed an independent writ petition to challenge the HARYANA ACT . The Union of India in its reply asserted that while excluding the jurisdiction of the 1925 Act by the HARYANA ACT , it amounts to winding up of the Board constituted under the 1925 Act whose functions necessarily fall under Entry 44 of List I. Therefore, the contention that the State of Haryana had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned HARYANA ACT in terms of Entry 32 of List II of Schedule VII appears to be misplaced. It is the stand of the Union that only Parliament has the exclusive power to enact law on the said subject. There is no justification for the Haryana State Legislature to have passed a law on the same subject matter, taking away the jurisdiction of the Board constituted under the 1925 Act.

5. It is submitted that the 1925