The Supreme Court verdict on Haryana gurdwaras, and what it means for the Sikh community

Until the Haryana Act came into force, the gurdwaras in Haryana were governed by the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

The Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management Act) was brought in based on a nearly two-decade old demand by a section of the Sikh community in Haryana to have a separate committee to manage gurdwaras in the state instead of SGPC.

Former president of Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (HSGMC) Jagdish Jhinda recalls the then leaders of Congress had promised formation of a separate committee for the state gurdwaras if the party was voted to power in 2005 Assembly polls. Finally, the then Bhupinder Singh Hooda-led Congress government in July 2014 had brought a legislation paving the way for formation of HSGMC.

The law that followed

The 2014 Bill that Haryana introduced in this regard stated that it was being brought in to provide a legal procedure by which the gurdwaras in the state may be brought effectively and permanently under the exclusive control of the Sikhs of Haryana for their proper use, administration, control and financial management reforms. It pointed out that the Sikh gurdwaras in the state were being governed by the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 but in view of the “demands of the Sikhs in the state of Haryana”, it was decided to introduce the new law. Thereafter, the Haryana Act was enacted which came into force on July 14, 2014.

The legal challenge and arguments

The constitutional validity of the law enacted by the state was challenged by an elected member of the SGPC from Kurukshetra, Harbhajan Singh, ahead of Haryana Vidhan Sabha polls in 2014.

The second writ petition was filed by the SGPC in 2019. Both pleas challenged the Act on similar grounds.

The petitioners claimed that the said Act violated the statutory provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and was intended to divide the Sikhs. They also accused the state of Haryana of encroaching on the religious affairs of the community. It was also argued that the Parliament alone is empowered to make such a law.

In the SC, the central government too stated that Parliament had the exclusive power to enact a law on this subject. The Centre further said that the contention of state of Haryana that it had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned Haryana Act, “appears to be misplaced”.

The Haryana government, however, argued that the state is competent to frame laws in respect of universities, unincorporated trading, literary, scientific “religious and other societies” and associations. It said: “The 1925 Act is a state Act. It was enacted by the Punjab Provincial Council. The state of Punjab has amended this 1925 Act thirty times from the date of its passing in 1925 up to 1966.” 1996 is the year when post-Partition Punjab was reorganised in the present states of Haryana, Punjab and Himachal (Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1996).

For its part, Punjab argued that in case of SGPC “as an inter-state body corporate”, the power to make laws on it had been reserved to the central government.

Through a separate affidavit in 2019, the Punjab government asked for “an appropriate order upholding the legislative competence of the state legislature to enact/amend legislation in relation to gurdwaras in their respective states”. The Punjab government said: “It is an undisputed fact that the 1925 Act is an act of the state legislature. It was enacted for the administration of certain Sikh Gurdwaras within the State of Punjab as it then existed and thereafter various amendments have been made to it by the Punjab Legislature.”

The final verdict

Upholding the validity of the Act, the Supreme Court said that the Act had left the religious affairs of the Sikhs exclusively “in the hands of the Sikhs in the same manner as was under the 1925 Act”.

“Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the state are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution,” the court said.

Ruling that the Haryana Act was within the legislative competence of the state, the court added: “The SGPC became inter-state body corporate not because of Entry 44 List I (Union List under Seventh Schedule) but because of reorganisation of the territories of the erstwhile state of Punjab. Therefore, Entry 44 would have no applicability in respect of legislative competence of the state of Haryana to enact the Haryana Act.”

It rejected Centre’s argument that Haryana had no power to make a law on the matter.

What happens next?

According to HSGMC president Baljit Singh Daduwal, the SGPC is currently looking after the management of 48 gurdwaras leaving only four for the HSGMC.

Daduwal hopes that now the management of all 52 gurdwaras will be handed over to the HSGMC adding a few gurdwaras have already initiated a process in this direction after the verdict of the SC.

Jagdish Singh Jhinda, who remained president of the HSGMC from 2014 to 2020, said that now the Sikhs of Haryana will be able to take their political decisions more independently instead of looking towards the Badal family of Punjab. According to Jhinda, through SGPC, Badals have been influencing the politics of Sikh community in Haryana too as “the SGPC has been looking after the management of gurdwaras and recruiting staff for the same”. Jhinda added the Sikh voters play an important role in nearly 25 Assembly constituencies out of total 90 Vidhan Sabha segments in Haryana.

The SGPC, meanwhile, has decided to file a review petition following the SC judgment. The Shiromani Akali Dal, which controls the SGPC, has called the Act an “an attack on the ‘panth’.