Supreme Court upholds validity of Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Management Act

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld the constitutional validity of the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act of 2014 [Harbhajan Singh vs State of Haryana and ors]..A Bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath observed that since the Act provides that management of Gurdwaras would be by Sikhs alone, it is not violative of Articles 25 and 26 (freedoms of religion and conducting religious affairs) of the Constitution. The 2014 Act provides for the creation of a separate juristic entity for the management of historical Gurdwaras in Haryana."The members of the committee have to be elected from the eligible voters who is Amritdhari Sikh, a Sikh, and who is eighteen years of age, but not a Patit Sikh and is not an insolvent, mentally retarded or an insane person. The co-option is from the members of the community alone. Therefore, the affairs of the religious minority in the 56 State i.e., Sikhs is left in the hands of the Sikhs alone in the same manner as was under the 1925 Act," the Court noted. .The batch of pleas challenging the Act, including one by the Kurukshetra-based Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC), primarily submitted that it was against constitutional and existing statutory provisions. It was contended that the law's intention was divisive and it attempt to create dissentions amongst the Sikh community, and also violated fundamental rights. Counsel for the petitioners argued that it was the Union government and not the State government that was competent to make laws governing gurdwara management. Haryana has to go by the 1925 Act for managing gurdwaras (then in undivided Punjab) enacted by parliament, it was argued. The 1966 Act was also based on the same principle, it was submitted. The SGPC argued that the State had taken away its right to administer of Gurdwaras and associated properties.The Bench in its judgment dealt with the following questions of law that thus arose:.Whether Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Inter-state Corporation Act, 1957 were transitional provisions to meet the immediate requirement of the issues arising out of creation of separate States?.The top court said that even 1966 Act had not barred the State government from legislating on items under List II of the Seventh Schedule or even in List III of the Seventh Schedule, subject to the limitations as prescribed in the Constitution."The consistent view of the three Full Benches of the High Court and of this Court is that the power of the Centre to issue directions under Section 72 of the 1966 Act is a transitional provision. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the power of the Centre to issue directions under Section 72 of the 1966 Act is indeed a transitional provision to ensure smooth and continuous functioning of a body corporate so that it is not paralyzed on becoming an inter-State body corporate due to reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab. The directions contemplated by Section 72 relates to functioning and operation of such body corporate. A competent State legislature is not deprived of its power to legislate on the subjects falling within its jurisdiction in terms of List II of the Seventh Schedule.".Whether the enactment (Haryana Act) falls within the legislative competence of the Haryana State Legislature or it falls in Entry 44 of List I (Union List) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution?.The Bench ruled that the 2014 Act falls within the legislative competence of the State of Haryana." ... any law dealing with charities, charitable institutions and endowments falls within List III [of the seventh schedule]. Such law contemplated by List III is a regulatory law to regulate the functioning of charitable institutions or charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions. Whereas, incorporation of a statutory body falls in Entry 32 of List II, as also unincorporated religious and other societies."It was made clear that the transitional provisions of the earlier Acts do not impinge upon the legislative competence of the Haryana State legislature to enact a law on the subject at hand. .Whether, the Act falls in List-III (Concurrent List) Schedule VII, which required the assent of the President of India as per Article 254(2) of the Constitution of India, and in the absence of such assent, void?.The Bench outright dismissed this question as it noted that the Haryana Act does not fall under Entry 28 (charitable institutions, religious endowments/institutions) of List III of the Seventh Schedule..Whether any fundamental rights of the petitioners under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India are violated, so as to entitle the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution?.The Bench ruled that the affairs of gurdwaras in the State are required to be managed by local committees and since the committee comprises of Sikhs alone, the rights under Articles 25 and 26 are not violated. "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.".Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi with advocates Jasbir Singh Malik, Ritesh Khatri, Usha Nandini V, and Gagan Gupta appeared for the petitioners. Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraj appeared for the Union government. Senior Advocates Shyam Divan appeared for the Haryana government. Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar with advocate Siddharth Batra appeared for the Haryana Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committe. .[Read Judgment]