‘Sikh affairs to be managed by Sikhs alone’: SC upholds 2014 Haryana law on gurdwaras

New Delhi, Sep 20 (IANS) The High Court on Tuesday maintained the protected legitimacy of the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (The board) Act, 2014, permitting development of a different panel other than the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandak Council (SGPC) to oversee issues of gurdwaras in the state.

A seat of judges Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath said: “The undertakings of the strict minority in the state i.e., Sikhs is abandoned in the possession of the Sikhs in a similar way as was under the 1925 Demonstration (Sikh Gurdwaras Act). The Haryana Act likewise accommodates Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Legal Commission in a similar way as is given under the 1925 Demonstration.”

Equity Gupta, who created the judgment in the interest of the seat, said: “The issues of the gurdwara are again expected to be overseen by nearby Gurdwara Advisory group. Since the issues of the Sikh minority in the state are to be overseen by the Sikhs alone, in this manner, it can’t be supposed to be violative of any of the crucial privileges presented under Articles 25 (opportunity to rehearse religion) and 26 (opportunity to oversee strict issues) of the Constitution.”

The Middle had contended that main the Parliament has the elite ability to order regulation on the said subject and there is no support for the Haryana council to have passed a regulation on a similar topic, removing the locale of the Board comprised under the 1925 Demonstration. It further fought that main the Focal government could give headings with respect to working and activity of a between state body corporate, ie, the SGPC.

Nonetheless, senior promoters Shyam Divan and Ranjit Kumar, addressing Haryana and the Haryana council, separately, presented that the wellspring of force of sanctioning of the Haryana Act is Passage 32, Rundown II of the Seventh Timetable.

In exercise of such power, a legal body is tried to be made, though, Passage 28 of Rundown III arrangements with noble cause and magnanimous foundations, magnanimous and strict blessings and strict establishments.

“In this manner, any regulation managing good cause, altruistic establishments and blessings falls inside Rundown III. Such regulation pondered by Rundown III is an administrative regulation to manage the working of beneficent foundations or magnanimous and strict gifts and strict establishments.

While, joining of a legal body falls in Section 32 of Rundown II, as likewise unincorporated strict and different social orders. Consequently, the Haryana Act falls inside the authoritative capability of the state,” they contended.

The then Haryana government under Boss Clergyman Bhupinder Singh Hooda had passed the 2014 Demonstration in the state Get together, making a different juristic element for the administration of verifiable gurdwaras in the state.

The seat noticed that neither the 1956 Demonstration (The 1956 States Redesign Act) nor the 1966 Demonstration (1966 Punjab Revamping Act) nor the 1957 Demonstration (the Between State Partnership Act) has removed the regulative skill of the states to administer regarding the matters which tracks down notice in Rundown II of the Seventh Timetable and additionally in regard of issues falling in Rundown III of the Seventh Timetable in the way recommended.

“The 1956 Demonstration or the 1966 Demonstration engages the Focal government to give headings to make the between state element utilitarian, yet the Focal government has not been enabled to enact in regard of such between State bodies which came to be functional in at least one States because of the revamping of the States,” said the top court in its 58-page judgment.

It said the 1925 Demonstration was initially an intra-state regulation ordered by the state council and it in this manner turned into a between state body simply by prudence of the 1966 Demonstration. “Since the ability to enact presented on the assembly has not been impacted in any way, thusly, the state would have ability to administer both under Section 28 of Rundown III or Passage 32 of Rundown II for the explanation that the 1925 Demonstration isn’t a between state body corporate in regard of which the Parliament consolidated such Board,” it added.

Harbhajan Singh, an inhabitant of Kurukshetra, tested the law and furthermore did a Leader Council individual from the SGPC, which dealt with the gurdwaras covered by the 1925 Demonstration and spread over the provinces of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, and Association Domain of Chandigarh.