Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

{7} The Union of India, on the other hand, defends its action urging that Section 72(3) of the 1966 Act expressly authorizes it to make any amendment or modification in Part-III of the 1925 Act and the said power has been invoked for umpteen times in the past including the one inserting Section 47-A in the said Act vide Notification dated 03.02.1978 constituting the 'Gurdwara Election Commission' or for the appointment of Chief Commissioner for the Gurdwara elections. It is averred that the Sikh Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) vide its Resolution No.9 dated 30th November, 2000 recommended amendment of certain provisions of the 1925 Act and thereafter forwarded subsequent resolutions including Resolution No.300 dated March 7, 2002 demanding that 'Sehajdhari Sikhs' should not have a right to vote under the 1925 Act and that the election of SGPC be conducted only after the words "except in the case of Sehajdhari Sikhs" are deleted from Sections 49 and 92 of the 1925 Act. It is maintained that the Parliament by incorporating Section 72 in the 1966 Act has empowered the Central Government "to issue amendments under the provisions of Part-III of the Sikh CWP No17771 of 2003.doc -6-

{12}The State of Punjab in its short reply/affidavit has maintained that the issues raised by the petitioner do not pertain to it hence no detailed reply is required on its behalf.

{13}The SGPC has filed its detailed reply/affidavit emphasizing that in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Gurleen Kaur and CWP No17771 of 2003.doc -8- other's case, the 'Sehajdhari Sikhs' who trim or shave their beard/hair cannot be termed as 'Sikhs' for the grant of electoral rights, hence the Notification issued by the Union of India under Section 1966 Act calls for no interference. The above-stated plea has been taken in addition to what has already been pleaded by the SGPC in its reply to the first case (CWP No.17771 of 2003). {14}Respondent No.3 - Chief Commissioner, Gurdwara Election Commission has also filed a separate reply and while relying upon the Full Bench decision in Gurleen Kaur and other's case has reiterated the same plea as taken in the first case. {15}A Division Bench vide order dated 28.09.2010 directed this matter to be listed before a Full Bench on 10.12.2010 along with CWP No.11841 of 2010 and when the matters were taken up for hearing by the Full Bench on March 10, 2011, it was pointed out by counsel for the parties that the first case i.e. CWP No.17771 of 2003 listed before a Division Bench was also required to be heard by the Full Bench along with these cases. The Division Bench on the request made by counsel for the parties directed the listing of CWP No.17771 of 2003 also before a Full Bench along with CWP No.14179 of 2010. {16}The petitioner in this case also seeks quashing of the Government of India Notification dated 8th October, 2003 modifying Sections 49 & CWP No17771 of 2003.doc -9- 92 of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925. The petitioner claims to have contributed towards restoration of peace and harmony in the State of Punjab during the period when it was infested with terrorism. The petitioner has given a brief religious and legal history of 'Sikhs' and 'Sikhism' and maintains that a true Sikh is the one who believes in ten Gurus and Sri Guru Granth Sahib and does not profess any other religion. The petitioner has broadly replicated the pleas already taken up by the other writ-petitioners. It is in this backdrop that the respondents have rightly chosen not to file any separate reply/affidavit in this case in view of the pleadings being complete in the connected matters.

i. the Notification dated 8th October, 2003 ultra vires Section 72 of 1966 Act for the reason that the 'Committees' constituted to manage Gurdwaras under Sections 85, 86 or 87 of the 1925 Act are not the 'body corporates' yet their composition has been drastically altered by 'modifying' Section 92 of the 1925 Act. Similarly, the nature of directions contained therein pertain to 'establishment' of the Board and not its functioning or operations;

j. the SGPC Resolution relied upon by the Central Government to issue the impugned Notification recites 'bogus voting' as its solitary cause, for which the Rules framed by SGPC in the year 1959 contain adequate provisions and that the bogus voting had started not because the preventive provisions were inadequate but because the authorities did not follow those provisions. {30}Learned Advocate General, Haryana while supporting and supplementing the petitioners' cause, urged that :-

"keshadhari", has the right to be on the electoral rolls. As such, the right to vote, is only vested in a "keshadhari Sikh". Despite being a "keshadhari", and as such, a "sehajdhari Sikh", a person cannot be elected to the Board of the SGPC unless he has proceeded to acquire the higher form as an "amritdhari Sikh". A person cannot be nominated as a member of the Board, if he is a "patit". He must, therefore, be a "keshadhari Sikh", and as such, must be satisfying the requirements of a "sehajdhari Sikh" even for being nominated to the Board of the SGPC."