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

1959 Supreme(P&H) 39

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.D.Khosla and S.S.Dulat JJ.
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhak Committee, Amritsar
Versus
Governor Of The Punjab, Chandigarh
Civil Writ No. 802 of 1958,
Decided On : MARCH 4, 1959

The right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs and to administer its property is protected under Article 26 of the Constitution.

Headnote:

SIKH GURDWARAS ACT - EXTENSION TO PEPSU - CONSTITUTIONALITY - ARTICLE 26 OF THE CONSTITUTION - INTERFERENCE WITH THE RIGHT OF A RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION TO MANAGE ITS OWN AFFAIRS - VALIDITY OF THE SIKH GURDWARAS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1959.

Fact of the Case:

The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, was enacted to provide for the better administration of certain Sikh Gurdwaras in the Punjab. It set up committees of management for different Gurdwaras and also a Control Board commonly known as Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee which was given the control and general superintendence over all committees appointed under the Act. The Central Board was itself a committee in respect of certain Gurdwaras. The members of this Board were in the main elected, but there were also certain members by virtue of their office and a provision was also made for co-opting certain members resident in India but outside the Punjab. One necessary qualification for the membership of this Board was the professing of Sikh religion. There were also certain disqualifications contained in Sections 45 and 46 of the Act, such as being of unsound mind, inability to read and write Gurmukhi and taking alcoholic drinks. Similarly, qualifications and disqualifications were mentioned in the Act for being an elector.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Act, 1959, was not unconstitutional and did not interfere with the right of the Sikhs to manage their own religious affairs. The court also held that the Act was not discriminatory as it did not allow persons suffering from any of the disabilities mentioned in the Act to be members of the Board.

Issues: 1. Whether the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Act, 1959, was unconstitutional and interfered with the right of the Sikhs to manage their own religious affairs? 2. Whether the Act was discriminatory as it did not allow persons suffering from any of the disabilities mentioned in the Act to be members of the Board?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Act did not interfere with the right of the Sikhs to manage their own religious affairs as the management of Sikh Religious affairs was left entirely in Sikh hands. 2. The court also held that the Act was not discriminatory as it did not allow persons suffering from any of the disabilities mentioned in the Act to be members of the Board.

Final Decision: The court dismissed both the petitions and discharged the rule issued in each case.

Judgment

S.S.Dulat, J.

1. The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 , was enacted to provide for the better administration of certain Sikh Gurdwaras in the Punjab. It set up committees of management for different Gurdwaras and also a Control Board commonly known as Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee which was given the control and general superintendence over all committees appointed under the Act. The Central Board was itself a committee in respect of certain Gurdwaras. The members of this Board were in the main elected, but there were also certain members by virtue of their office and a provision was also made for co-opting certain members resident in India but outside the Punjab. One necessary qualification for the membership of this Board was the professing of Sikh religion. There were also certain disqualifications contained in Sections 45 and 46 of the Act, such as being of unsound mind, inability to read and write Gurmukhi and taking alcoholic drinks. Similarly, qualifications and disqualifications were mentioned in the Act for being an elector.

2. The Punjab Act, of course, did not apply to the Sikh Gurdwaras in the Indian States which later came to form the Union of Pepsu. In one of these States, namely, Patiala, however, the Ruler in 1946 ordered the formation of a Board to manage the Sikh Gurdawaras in Patiala and it was provided that the members of the Board would be nominated by the State. This Board was set up and began to manage the Gurdwaras in the Patiala State as it then was. On the formation of the Union of Pepsu in 1948 thin law became the law for the entire Union and the Board began to manage the Gurdwaras in Pepsu. Nominations to this Board were made by the Rajpramukh of Pepsu after the formation of the Union. On 1-11-1956 carne the merger of Pepsu and Punjab, but the Punjab Act was not extended to Pepsu and the Interim Board formed for Pepsu continued to function in respect of the Gurdwaras in that area. On 10-1-1958 the Governor of Punjab nominated certain persons to the Pepsu Board. On 24-7-1958 a writ petition (Civil Writ 802 of 1958) was filed in this Court challenging the validity of the notification issued by the Punjab Governor. Before, however, this petition came up for final hearing the Punjab Legislature enacted the Sikh Gurdwaras (Amendment) Act, 1959, by which the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, was extended to the territory which immediately before the merger was comprised in Pepsu and, in consequence, the previous Board for Pepsu came to be abolished. On 27-1-1959, another writ petition (Civil Writ 81 of 1959) was filed in this Court challenging the constitutional validity of the new Act. We have heard the two petitions and they can be conveniently disposed of together,

3. As far as the first petition is concerned, the issue raised by it is virtually dead because the Pepsu Gurdwara Board is not to function any longer and the Gurdwaras in Pepsu are now to he managed by the Board set up under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. The controversy before us is about the validity of the Amending Act of 1959.

4. Mr. Gujrals main contention in support of the second writ petition is that the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 , as now amended, offends against Article 26 of the Constitution as it interferes with the right of a religious denomination to manage its own affairs and to administer its property. No objection is taken to the extension of the Act to the Pepsu Area. Nor is any objection raised against the constitution of the Board as it will be permanently after the new general election. The objection merely is to the constitution of the Board as it will remain during the transitional period, that is, from now till the next general election. What the Legislature has done in this connection is contained in Section 148-B of the Amending Act. This says:

"148-B. (1) As from the commencement of the Amending Act, in addition to the members of the Board constituted under Section 43 and till the next election of the new Board under Secti




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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