Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sehajdhari Sikh Federation vs Union Of India And Others on 1 September, 2011
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 17771 of 2003 (O&M) and connected petitions
Date of Decision: September 1, 2011
Sehajdhari Sikh Federation
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others
...Respondents
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:
For the petitioner(s): Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate,
with Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate,
Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate,
Mr. G.S. Sullar, Advocate.
Mr. M.S. Khaira, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Dharminder Singh, Advocate,
Mr. H.S. Deol, Advocate,
for Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate.
For the respondent(s): Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Surjit Singh Swaich, Sr. Panel Counsel,
Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Sr. Panel Counsel,
Mrs. K.K. Kahlon, Sr. Panel Counsel,
Mr. I.P.S. Doabia, Advocate.
Mr. Kulbir Sekhon, Advocate.
Ms. Dilraj Kaur, Advocate,
Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Advocate,
for the Union of India.
Mr. Hawa Singh Hooda, AG, Haryana with
Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana,
for the State of Haryana.
Mr. Suvir Sehgal, Addl. AG, Punjab.
for the State of Punjab.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Standing Counsel,
for Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate,
for the SGPC.
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
CWP No. 17771 of 2003 (O&M) and connected petitions. 2
M.M.Kumar, J.
1. This order shall dispose of CWP No. 17771 of 2003, CWP No. 14179 of 2010 (Hans Raj v. Union of India and others) and CWP No. 11841 of 2010 (Harbans Singh Kandhola v. Union of India and others) as common question of law and facts are involved.
2. In CWP No. 17771 of 2003, the petitioner has challenged notification dated 8.10.2003 (P-3) issued by the respondent-Union of India whereby in Sections 49 and 92 of the Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925 (for brevity, '1925 Act'), the word "Sehajdhari" has been omitted. The said amendment has been made by the Union of India in exercise of the power conferred under sub-sections (1) read with sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (for brevity, '1966 Act'), on a resolution passed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar. The primary grievance of the petitioner in the said case is that by virtue of the omission of word 'Sehajdhari', a large number of 'Sehajdhari Sikhs' have been deprived of their right to vote in the elections of SGPC and other related Boards and Committees. A further direction has been sought from restraining the Chief Commissioner, Gurudwara Elections- respondent No. 3 from finalising the electoral rolls and starting the election process of SGPC Board.
3. In CWP No. 11841 of 2010, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of Section 44 of the 1925 Act being ultra vires of the Constitution. A direction has been sought directing the respondents to make amendment in the electoral registration form and register the electors for elections to the Board of SGPC strictly as per Rule 3 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Board Elections Rules, 1959. Challenge has also been made to the notification dated 17.9.2009 CWP No. 17771 of 2003 (O&M) and connected petitions. 3 (P-1). It has been alleged that the said notification has been issued by the Union of India for the purpose of creation and rotation of constituencies without ascertaining the number of electors in general as well as Schedule Castes/Women voters or SC women population in a particular constituency.
4. In CWP No. 14179 of 2010, the petitioner has again questioned the validity of notification dated 8.10.2003 being in contradiction to the definition of 'Sikh' as contained under the provisions of Section 2(9) and 2(10-A) of the 1925 Act as well as the amended Act as also being contrary and ultra vires to the provisions of Article 14, 21 and 25 of the Constitution. It has been asserted that the State cannot regulate the definitions of 'Religion' in general and 'Sikhs' in particular.
5. On 28.9.2010, when CWP No. 14179 of 2010 came up for consideration seeing the importance of the issue involved, Hon'ble Ist Bench felt the necessity that the matter is heard by a Full Bench of this Court. Subsequently, the other two petitions were also clubbed with the said petition. Accordingly, these petitions have been placed before this Full Bench.
6. At the hearing today, the matter was argued at length by Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, learned senior counsel with regard to the competency of the Union of India in issuing the impugned notification dated 8.10.2003 merely on the basis of the resolution passed by the SGPC. His fundamental argument has been that the impugned notification omitting the word 'Sehajdhari' used in Section 49 and 92 of the 1925 Act has been issued in purported exercise of power under sub-section (1) read with sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 72 of the 1966 Act. Mr. Chopra submitted that there is no power to amend the CWP No. 17771 of 2003 (O&M) and connected petitions. 4 1925 Act under Section 72 of the 1966 Act.
7. However, during the course of the arguments, Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondent-Union of India after obtaining instructions made a categorical statement that the impugned notification dated 8.10.2003 is withdrawn because it has been issued without any application of mind and only on the basis of the resolution passed by the SGPC on 30.3.2002 (R-1). Learned counsel has maintained that no such notification amending the 1925 Act could be issued by the Central Government as it does not fall within the para-meters of Section 72 of the 1966 Act. Mr. Harbhagwan Singh further states that the respondent-Union of India also wishes to withdraw the written statement taking a contrary stand.
8. In view of the aforesaid statement made by Mr. Harbhagwan Singh, the reference made to the Full Bench is rendered infructuous. Accordingly, these petitions are also disposed of as having been rendered infructuous as nothing remains to be adjudicated. The relief claimed by the petitioner(s) stand granted by Union of India by withdrawal of the impugned notification.
9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.
(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) September 1, 1, 2011 JUDGE Pkapoor