Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: sgpc in Gurleen Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 30 May, 2009Matching Fragments
vii) Can a minor student be refused admission if he/she trims, shaves, plucks etc. or otherwise removes or reduces/shortens his/her bodily hair ?"
13. The first submission raised on behalf of the petitioners, can be summarised as follows. Firstly, according to the petitioners, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the SGPC) is a Board created under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Gurdwara Act of 1925). The SGPC, in terms of the mandate of section 42 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, is a body corporate, having perpetual succession and a common seal. The aforestated provision also mandates, that the SGPC can be sued in its name, and likewise, it can sue others. Under section 106 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, the funds collected from "Sikh gurdwaras" can be used by the SGPC, inter-alia, for educational purposes. Secondly, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the SGPC has set up, and is running the respondent - Medical College, out of the aforesaid funds. It is also pointed out, that the management and control of the respondent - Medical College is also in the hands of the SGPC. On the basis of the cumulative effect of the first and the second submissions noticed hereinabove, it is sought to be asserted, that the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925 are binding on the respondent - Medical College. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact whether or not the petitioners are Sikhs, will have to be determined on the basis of the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. Accordingly it is submitted, that the petitioners cannot be declared ineligible for admission against the seats reserved for the Sikh minority community, either by the SGPC or by the respondent - Medical College, in violation of the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. In this behalf, it would also be pertinent to mention, that it is the case of the petitioners, that Note I under the conditions of eligibility and qualifications laid down in the prospectus, for candidates belonging to the Sikh minority community, is in clear violation of the mandate of the definition of the term "Sikh", under section 2 (9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. In this behalf, it is pointed out that, all the petitioners must be deemed to profess the Sikh religion in the light of the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. It is also pointed out, that all the petitioners had filed affidavits alongwith their application forms, in the format extracted hereinabove, affirming that they were Sikhs. It is asserted that all the petitioners believed only in the ten "Sikh gurus" and in the Guru Granth Sahib. It is also asserted by the petitioners, that none of them owe allegiance to any other faith, sect or religion. As such, all the petitioners must be deemed to be Sikhs. All the petitioners also assert that they maintain the "Sikhi swarup". It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners that the action of the respondent - Medical College in not allowing the petitioners admission to the MBBS course, under the Sikh minority community quota, despite their higher merit, is unsustainable in law.
For the years preceding 1922, most important of the Sikh shrines, such as the Golden Temple, Shri Akal Takht Sahib at Amritsar and the Baba Attal were entirely in the hands of the government. The remaining sacred places of pilgrimages and the "Sikh gurdwaras" with their astounding income, were in the possession of "mahants" (incharge of Sikh gurdwaras). As a consequence of a dispute between the Sikhs fighting for the cause of lower castes (who were then described as untouchables) on the one hand, and the "pujaris" (priests) managing the Golden Temple, Amritsar, on the other, the Golden Temple, as well as, the Akal Takht came into the hands of the Sikhs, whereafter the "pujaris" left the same. At that time, it was decided to constitute a committee for the management of the "Sikh gurdwaras". The government, accordingly constituted (through the Maharaja of Patiala), a committee of 36 members to devise plans for the better management of the "Sikh gurdwaras". The Sikh community considered this an undue interference. A congregation was, accordingly, summoned by the Sikhs at Amritsar, which resulted in the formation of the SGPC. The SGPC so constituted, commenced to take steps for improving and reforming the management of the "Sikh gurdwaras". This step was, however, strongly opposed by "mahants" who were then incharge of "Sikh gurdwaras". The stage was, accordingly, set for the government of the time to intervene yet again. As per historical records, the control of the Golden Temple moved from the hands of the SGPC to the government. It is not necessary for us for the purposes of the present controversy, to delve into the niceties of the dispute between the rival parties, so far as the issue of taking control of the "Sikh gurdwaras" is concerned.
44. By our order dated 29.9.2008, we had directed the SGPC to file an affidavit based on a resolution passed by the SGPC so as to clarify "whether or not a person who cuts his hair and/or shaves his beard, is a "sehijdhari Sikh", even if he performs all the prescribed ceremonies according to the Sikh rites, does not use tobacco or "katha" in any form and can recite "mool mantar" (with reference to section 2(10-A) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925). In furtherance of the aforesaid direction issued by us, in the first instance, Shri Harbeant Singh, Secretary, SGPC, filed an affidavit dated 5.12.2008, inter-alia, stating as under: -
Subsequently, Shri Dalmegh Singh, Secretary, SGPC, filed a clarificatory affidavit dated 16.1.2009 on the basis of another decision taken by the SGPC, wherein representatives of Sikh bodies and Sikh intellectuals were invited to discuss the issue on 2.1.2009. Thereafter, the draft prepared by the aforestated representatives, was unanimously approved by the Executive Committee of the SGPC on 15.1.2009. According to the affidavit, the final stand of the SGPC in respect of its interpretation of the term "sehijdhari Sikh" is as under: -