E-Paper
Supreme Court upholds validity of Haryana gurdwara act
The law titled Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 was opposed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) and also the Centre on the ground that the Haryana government did not have the legislative power to enact such a law as the management of gurdwaras rested with the SGPC created under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 that was meant to be an interstate entity.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a law passed by the Haryana government in 2014 that created an entity for the exclusive management of gurdwaras in the state.
The law titled Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 was opposed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) and also the Centre on the ground that the Haryana government did not have the legislative power to enact such a law as the management of gurdwaras rested with the SGPC created under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 that was meant to be an interstate entity.
Dismissing the petitions challenging the Haryana Act, a bench of justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath said, “The Haryana Act falls within the legislative competence of the State.”
The bench noted that the SGPC was an intrastate body corporate of the united Punjab territory prior to reorganisation of the state in the year 1966. “The reorganisation has rendered the SGPC as an interstate body corporate but the legislative power to legislate on the subject of incorporation of the Corporations would be within the jurisdiction of the Haryana State Legislature.”
By the Act which came into operation on July 14, 2014, the Haryana government created a separate state-specific Haryana Gurdwara management Committee for the management of gurdwaras falling under three heads -- historical gurdwaras, gurdwaras having income of more than Rs.20 lakhs, and those having income less than Rs.20 lakhs.
The Centre asserted that by this Act, the jurisdiction of the 1925 Act was taken away as it amounted to winding up of the Board constituted under the 1925 Act.
The Haryana government argued that the law was passed under Entry 32 of State List under the Constitution which deals with “religious and other societies and associations”. Further, the state argued that the power of the Centre to issue directions under the Punjab Reorganization Act 1966 was transitional and hence cannot restrict the state from legislating on subjects under its jurisdiction.
The bench held, “Though the Haryana Committee is in respect of religious purpose, but the prime intention is of an incorporation of a juristic entity to manage the affairs of the Sikhs in the State. Thus, Entry 32 is wide enough to include incorporation of such statutory entity.”
The bench held that the power of the Centre to issue directions under Section 72 of the 1966 Act was “transitional” to ensure smooth and continuous functioning of a body corporate so that it is not paralysed on becoming an interstate body corporate due to reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab. This, however, will not deprive the state legislature of its power to legislate on the subjects falling within its jurisdiction, it added.
The SGPC argued that the Haryana Act violated its fundamental rights as it amounted to infringement of practising one’s religion under Article 25 and managing religious affairs of the religion under Article 26.
The Court examined the Haryana Act provisions and found that the affairs of the newly created body were to be fully managed by Sikhs. “Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution,” the bench held.
