Supreme Court of India
SHIROMANI GURUDWARA PRABHANDHAK COMMITTEE, AMRITSARversusMAHANT KIRPA RAM & ORS.
- Citation
- 1984 INSC 72
- Decided
- 29 March 1984
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- D A DESAI
Holding
The institution was not established for use by Sikhs for public worship and therefore does not meet the criteria of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.
Summary
A group of villagers applied to the Punjab Government to have a local religious institution declared a Sikh Gurdwara under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. The application was referred to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal, which held that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara and that the respondent was the hereditary Mahant. The respondent appealed, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the Tribunal’s declaration, finding that the institution was founded by an Udasi Mahant on land granted by a Muslim ruler and served both Udasi followers and Sikhs, thus not satisfying the statutory requirement that it be established by Sikhs for public worship. The appellants sought a certificate under Article 133 of the Constitution, which the High Court also rejected. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court, holding that the institution was not established for Sikh public worship and therefore could not be declared a Sikh Gurdwara under Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. The appeals were dismissed with costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the institution was established by Sikhs for the purpose of public worship.
- Whether the institution was used for Sikh public worship before and at the time of the petition.
- Whether the institution qualifies as a Sikh Gurdwara under Section 16(2)(iii) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.
- Whether the High Court’s view that the institution catered to two different faiths is correct.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 133(1)(a), s. Article 133(1)(c)
- Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925s. 14, s. 16(2)(iii), s. 2(9), s. 8
Subjects
Sikh GurdwaraUdasi sectreligious institutionSikh Gurdwaras Act 1925public worshipdual useMahanttribunalhigh courtSupreme Court
Judgment
•
Slkh Gurdwaras .Act; 1925 Section 16~2)(iii)-Gurdwara-Tests /ordetermina.'
c Ifon of-,Tv be s.hown iri~titution established /oruse by Sikhs for pu/)lic·\lorship. ·
Sikhs and Udasis-Di$/incdcms-What are.
•· ~ .
'
..
A 'group of persons.re~iding. in .a village and prof~ssing the Sikb r~Jigion
made an application · to t11e State Government requesting the Government -to ·
declare the religious and ..charitabla institution described· in the appliCation at a
.·. ·n
(
Sikh Gurdwara. . This application was puNishe~ in the OfficiaiGazeue and res·
poodent No._l filed objections under section 8 of 1he Sikh Gurdwar~s Act, 19is
eontendil1g that the institution was not ~ Sikh Gurdwara and tha1 he was eiuit1·
ed to raise the said con'teritiorr·beca!Jse be· was the hold.!r of'the hereditary ~ffice
~f mahant of the ins~it~1ion. . '
The application was forwarded by the State G~vernment und~r ··~ectio~ t4
to the' Sikh.Gurdwara Tribunal which held tJ:tat th! respondent ~as the beredi· ·
ta-ry holder of the office of mahant of the institution and that the institution· w~ ~-~
a Sikh Gurdwara ang was governed by the_Act. ·
. The respo·,1dent, thereupon· flied an a.ppeal. in the High C~urt which\etd' ·
_that the institution '~s set up·by a mahant for commemorat.ing the memory of
F hiS Guru and that the land o~ wbic;h the institution was set up·whh the gr~t
of Muafi had been donated by. a .Muslim ruler. After considering of [be
e~tries. in the· land records; the High Court fur'th~r he!<\ that institution was not
only ser~ing as a Gu(d\~ara for the worship of Granth Saheb but was also us~
as a Dera or lodging house or Sadhus ·'·or Faqirs 'of the Udasi Sect and 'that · .4.. .
there was a duality of fait he;.in the institution; The High Court conciuded lhac -
the institution was catering to .th~ ·religious ~fews and beliefs of both the sects
· ~m.ongst the local pop,ulali.on and that the .. Tribunal was ~n error in declaring~
·that the institution was a:...Stkb Gudr~ara, wh1ch woufd permit one of the com. •
munities to appro~tiate the institutioo to its exclllsive use and to cleprive the
other community or sect fro·rn the dual use to which the institution· has been put
.... '
·..
'
. .,.. ,
evet since ft wa'\ founded or estabtished. Th:: High ~ourt, coJ_lsequently aUow-
ed the appeal and set aside the ~cia ration made.by ~l)e Tribuna 1.
H
'•
' · Dismis~ing the further. appeals ~ this Court ,
- '
. . \
..
S.G.P.C. ·v. MAllAl'·lT
..• .. .·KIR.PAR.AM
. - ~
373
•
HJ;!LD : 1. The appraisal of the evidence by the High Court is correct a·nd .
~nexce~tional~ 'fhe evid~nce discloses .that the insdtution in question was not
$hown to h~ve been c:.stablished for' use by Sikhs for the purpose of public
wo~nip• and therefore one of the material conditions for attracting section;
J6{2,till) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 was not established. It is immaterial
~that ·at .the time of.presentation oftbe petttion 1t was along with tli.e followers .
<Jf U~asi.Sect used foi. worship of Granth .Sahi~ by the. Sikhs. (3.82E·FJ .·
B
2. In orper .to bring a case under .section 16(2}(iii) of the Act it must not
·.only be established·.that the institution was established by Sikhs-for the purpose
-of public worship but was used for such worship by Sikhs before and at the time
<>f the presentation .of the petition. 1he. u~e of the corijunciive •and' 'clearly·
.imparts that in order ·to attract Sect~on l6(i)(iii) both the conditions must be.
•cumulatively satisfied. [380A-.B] ·
•
Gurmukh Singh v. Risaldar Dtva Singh &: Ors.• ·AIR 1937 Lahore S77,
· .ajlowed, '
3. Udasis form an independent sect ·: They do venerate Sikh Scrip'ture!l.
'Therefore, in an institution of Udasis sect, one can ·visualise reading of Granth
Sahib or veneration of Sikh scriptures. Tbat itseff is ~ot decisive ofthe character
· -<>f tb'e fnstitution. If the succession . was from . Guru to Chela and those Gdrus .o
as
·were f.Uowets of Udasi faith and the institution. was known Dera of Udasi
Bhekh 'and they follow~d some of the practices of Hindu traditional religion 'that
·would
. be completely destru:tive of .the ) character of the institution as Sikh
.Ourdwara. f381E-FJ
Mahant Daram Dass tic. v. The Siate of Punjtlb & Drs. [19~~] 3 SCR 160
.Hem Singh & Ors. v. Basapt Das aud.Anr., Al~ 1936 PC 93 at IOO .and Pritam
l I.Da1s Mahant v: Shiromani Gurdwara Prabha,dak Comm(ttu, C.A. No. 1983 of
'1970 dated 16.2.84 referred to. ·• .·
In the instant· case, there is no evidence toshow that 'the institution was
·(!Stablished for use by Sikhs for the pmpose of public worship. Though the
-to~titution may be established by anyone may be a Sikh or follower of any other
··faith, 'but it mu.st ~·established for use by Sikhs for the· purp.ose of public wor- I'1
..ship. "{'he original' grantor was a Musllm ruler put there is . nothing to show
·that when Gulab .Das Faqir of Udasi Sect .estl'blished the institut~on, be did it
~ 'for use bY Sikhs for the purpose of public \VOrship. Later on as the majority of
..the population of the village ·were followers of Sikh religion -and as Udasis also
· ,venerate Granth Sahib, reading of Granth Sahib may have commenced and
•(herefore, generally speaking people may describe, and . revenue record may
~·
-show it to be' Gurdwara, btit that would· neith~r be decisive of the character of
th~ institution nor sufficient to bring the institution•within Section 16(2)(iii)
·-'t)f the Act. [3SOD·F]
• ClVlL APPELLATE .JU.RI.SDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1685-16S&
• · n97I .,.. · • I
. If
Appeals by Specialleav~ from the Judgment and.On1er dated
~.1..1971 & .t4.Jl.l969 cf th• Punjab · and' Haryana Hiah Courj
·- A ih S.C.
-.
•
Appe~i- No. 96·oi 1970 & ' First
..
..
Appeal No. 59 of 1964..
~ . ..
-IJ •
. ., .
' · Harbans La/, Urmi/a Kapoor, Kamini Jaiswal, Nishi Puri,..
Shahsi Ktran and T~hal Singh Mmigal for' the R~spondents.
· - ·The Jtidginent of the C~urt Wits d~livered by
DESAI, J, Whether a. religious and/or charita-ble institution~
.. situated in- village Malial Khurd~- Tehsil ~armila 0f Sangtur District.
is a sikh.· duf(fwaia ·wii~1n the meaning of the· expression in the
Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 ('Act' for short) is the subject ~matter_ o1
cBtitroversy between
.the parties in this app!al by speciaiie~rve.
. -
· About 56 persons residing in village Mahal Khurd and profes-
s-ing Sikh religion made an: application to the G<)vermnent of Punjab·
-on December 23, 1960 r·equestip.g the GJvernment lo declare the
institution more particularly described in the application as a. Sikh
Gurdwara .. This aJ?plication_ was publi3hed jn.the Official Gazette-:
\vhereupon Mahant Kirpa Ram, respondenJ No: 1. ('respondent' for
short) flied <?bjections unde_r Sec._ 8 of tpe Act contending_ tha~. the
institution was not a Sikh· Gurdwara · a-nd · 1hat he was entitled te>
raise tliat confentidn ·because he -was the holder of hereditary .office
of mahant of the. institution ..
.~
The• application was forwarded under Sec. 14· to the Sikll- ·'
Gurdwata Tribunal s~t up undet the Act. Upon rival contentions.
the Tribunal framed two issues as·under:
i' . ,· ~'1. Is the petitioner a her~ditary office holder of the.
· Gurdwara?
- 2..Is the Gurdwara in dispute· a Sikh. Gurdwara?'' .__.
The T~ibunal by its judgme.nt dated J~puary 21 ~ 1964 answered
G. Issue No. 1 in favour of the re$pondent hold·ing that he was a here-
ditary h~lder of the ~ffice of mahant ftof Ule institution .. On Issue
· No. 2, the Tribunal held that the institution is, a Sikh. Gurdwara-and
, is gover~ed by the Act. · · · ·
,_
The resp_ondentprefer~ed F.A...O. No. 59 of 1964 in the Hig..
H Court ~f Punjab and Haryana at Chandigrah. A Division Bench of
. the High Court held that the in-stitution uplsct· was by Gulabdas for
t .•..
· commemorating the memory of his Guru named Jad Guru. ·The
... =-··· ' '
~/-,... :
S.G.P.C. V. MAHANT K~RPARAM (Desai, J.) 375
~-
. .High Coqrt furth.er held that the land -on which the instftution was ·A
' ~et up with the grant of Muafi had been·donated by a Muslim ruler
. named Rai Kala of Rai Kot in favour of Mahant Gulabdas• It was ·
..2lso held. that the succes;bn to the office of mahant is from Guru to
·Ch.:Ja. After ref.!rring to varioJs entries in th·e land records, it was
,held that way b!ck in t861, t!le ins.titution was not only serving as a
·UlJ_rdwara"for the W.) ·ship of G ·anth Saheb but was als~ ~sed as a · u
..... .Dera or l'odging house.for s·adhus·or Faqirs ·or the Udasi Sect and
· ·that there w•lS a Jua:ity of faiths in the institution. After taking all
. .t he aspects into comideration,
. the High Court concluded ·that the
institut1on.in question was cater.ing to the religious views and beliefs
•
0f bot~ the sects amongst the local pop'ula tion and that therefore,. C
"the T~i.buna.J was in. error in declaring that it w.1~ a Si~h · Ourdwara
. ·which. would permit one of the commu.nities .to appropriate·.the
institution to its exdusiv~ use and to deprive the ·other community
..or sect fro~ the dual u>e to which the institution has.. been pnt ev~r
·:Since. it wa~ founded or established. Accordingly, the High· Court •
· .allowed the appeal and set aside · the · declaration made . by . the p
T~ibunal. · ·
Original applicants moved the High Co~rt for a certificate
··.under Art. 133(1) (af and (c) of the Constitution which was num-
.b ered lS S:C.A. No..96 of 1970. .The High Court on receipt ·of a
:.report as a result of enquiry ·directedL by it, by its ordf!r dated January•
I '
Ill
8, 1971 rejected the application .for certificate both under Art·. ·133
(1') (a) and (c). Thereupon the original appli_cants ~led these two .·
.·~H?P~als by speciaJ leave; one against the. decision -of the High Court
reversing the decision of the Tribuna1 ·and another against the order
·of the High Court r~jecting ·the · applicat~on 'for certificate, F
. Mr. M.N .. Phadke; learned couDsel who appeared. for the
· . appellant ·urged that if on evidence the app.eUants (original petitioners)
·are i·na position to show that· the institut}on w~s· -established for use
·by Sikhs· for the purpose of public worship and was used for such
. ·worship 9Y Sikhs, before and at the time of . the presentation of the G
·pe.tition under sub·section (I) of Sec, 7, the ·i1.1stitution · would be a
Sikh· Gurdwata as conte.mplated ·in Sec. 16(2) (iii) of the Act.
Proceeding along it was urged that there is evidence to· show .and
to
·even the High·Court has not ·round .the co.1trar.y .that the·. institu-
·tion was established for use by Sikhs for the ·purpose of public wor-
s~ip and was used for .such worship by Sikhs, ·before and at the time .
' -cf the presentation·oi the petition undet sub-section (l) .of. Sec. 7
•
•
376 SUPREME COURT ltEPORTS . [1984] 3 s.c.lt..
-..(
,A·. . and therefore, notwithstanding the fact that some other members ·'
belonging to some other faith or
sect also' venerate the institution, ·it.
• ·would nw detract from the character of the institution nor would iti
be destructive of the character of the institution as Sikh Gurdw.ara .. · .
Sec; 16(2) (iii) of th~ Aciprovides that 'if ifi! tribunal finds-
. that the gurdwara was established for use by Sikhs) for the purp~se
of public worship and was used for such worsi\fp by Sikhs, b~fo;re" · )!-
. and at the time of the presentation ·or the petition. tinder sub-sec. (l)t
of Sec. 7, the tribunal shall. decide that it should be declared to be a' •
Sikh Gurdwafa, and record an order accordingly.' · 'Sikh 'is define<! .
.in Sec~ 2(9) of the Act to mean 'a person who professes the Sikli
religion, or was kn&wn to be a Sikh during his lifetime/ If a disputd-
arises· as to whether any particular person is or is not a Sikh, the:
outcome will depend upon his. willingness to subscribe-to a declara.L
tion a'S-prescrib~d in the Act. Amongst Sikhs, t)lere can be Amritdharr
Sikhs- and. Sabjdhari Sikhs: One can-be said to be a Patit if he being · 1
or
a·:Keshdhari Sikh trims or shaves .his beard kcshas or who after-
nking a~rit commits any ,one pr more of the four kurahits...
The first ~questi~n is: whether .it has bee-n satisfactorily est.abli-
.1ihed that the institution was set UP. by Sikhs for the purpose of public==
·• · worship and was used· fhr s~ch ;orship -by Sikhs. The Tribunal'
found th~t· the institution is an old one and·. no direct- or.al or ·
dbc~mentary evidence . regar'~ing the purp~se for which it wa!i..
· . founded is available. . Reliance was p1aced on the cop'ies of thd-
- ~evenue records, to 'sho~ how the institution was described in
1'.- . Government Jand records. On appra_isal of the entries, it has beea
concurrently found :that· the institution was set up by' Mah~nf
Gulabdas upon a grant of land m1de to him. It appears a Sanad ·
was issued but it was los{ when the Mahratta-, over ran this part .of
·~ 1he·.countzy. The High Court 'then .traced the origin village of
·Mah~l Khurd and recorde_d a finding that the first settlers camt: tc>r·
G. . tltat area in the beginning of'the 18th· Centu'ry and amongst them
were Bir Pal, Garib Da5s and Bhoja.. They . cleared the forest _land , ·
, arid started cultivating ~he land. The High ·o-.mrt then·.exammed
what area of land can b.e·cultivated 'with the help of one pa1r of
~ :bullocks~ After asserting the pr9bative value' of Kafiat-Delzi or
.-w.Qjah. Tasmif1s, Ext. P-21 and F-22, the High ~ourt concluded· that
B,. the muaft'i.e. exemption from payment of land -rev~nue had. been
·iranted to the institution froiiJ. the time village had fil'$t been ,founded
.\)out 200 years before the .ttcords were prepared, but these record!~
; .
•
..
.. . \
S.G .P.C. v. MAHANT KIRPAR AM (Desai, J.) 377 .
•
do not help in assc~iog the purpose for which mu.afi was granted or ,
the purpose for 'which the institution was established. This conclu- · A
sion was not commented· upon ,and deserves to be accepted a~
rcasonaplc inference from the evidence.
. . .. .
Mr. Phadke ho\'lcvcr invited· ~s to ~xamine jamrrbandi ·entries
and on tlfe strength of them attempted to urge that since remote
past the entries describe the iihtitution as gurdwar~.
.n-.
, · Ex. P~ l is a will dated .May 10, 1958-exccuted by Mahant
. Rasi!i Ram by which the respondent was appointed as his chela with
a right to succeed to the office of mahant of tbis institution.• . This is •
a document of recent origin and is not of much assistance. We may c J.
next turn to Ext. P-2 datc'd the 25th Baisakh, 1927 corresponding to l '.
1~71 A. D. It is a decisipn recorded in a muafi enquiry proceeding · ; i ',
in respect of'land admeasuring 2b6 Bigha~ and 16 Biswa s then found
to be in possession of the institution. It recites that . the land was
given to Gulab Dass Faqir . by Rai Kalha of 'Rai Kat real donce:-
'
bcing his Guru known as Jad Guru who ris the muafidar. It · was
also found that entries in lnnm register show t hat the land admen-
suring J 2J Bighas has been entered in the name of muafldar .and ·
tbat area of land remained muafi to t he muafidar with the approval
of Rai Niza m Sahib and the remaining land measuring 86 Bighas and
16 Biswas wh ich was in cx.cess of grant should bt! resumed to the Gover· E
nmcnt afta ohtaining the approval of the Diwun Saheb. Two things · '
emt:rge from Ext. P-2. that the original mu nfi grant wns made·by a
"Musltm rukr in favour of M:thant Guh\b Dass Faquir of Udasi sect ~
who appears to have set up the institution to commemorate the
memory of his ' Guru, Jud Guru. These earlier entries do not F
support tbe claim ndvanced on behalf of the <~rpcllants that the
in:>titution was set up by Sikhs for the purpose ,.of public worship.
Oo the contrary, the institution appcnrs to hnve been set up by
. Gulab Da!ls a follower of Udac;i sect a nd sutccssion to the office of
•,
l\hlhant i'i by Guru to Chd.t.
. . ·
G
Rt:f~rcnce ·Wa!: next made to Exts. P· 7 nnd P·8 which appear to
be statements of Lambardars nnd P.nwaris in question answer form
which show that they hcnn.l fro m their ancestors that the munfi had,
been granted by Rai Knlha to Baba Gulab Doss. by way of Punartlt
H
for meeting the expcnse:s of the D-:ra nnJ D;tl Bhog Parshad Granth • I
Sahib. • Relying on these statc:mcnts it. wns urg(d that at the time of
rccordio& lh~ r.t~t\!mcnts on April 19. 187~ Granth Sahib was being
I
. ·. . ..
• . ..
. .
378' : . SUPREMB COURT JtEPOR.lS . :(1984}3 S.C.R··
.. ' '. .
~
. ..
vcnerat'd in the io.stitution and the gr~nt w~s for Bal Bho~ P~r~d, .•
. ·.A-··of Granth Sahib. There statcmc~ts su~er from the vice of hearsay
evidence i!1 as uch .as the r eference tothe Granth Sahib . for the
111
first time appears in these statements not based on any penon i .
. . knowledge-but of wha~ th~y had heard from _their_ ancestor~: Ex~.
P"~S . purports to be a statement of the then ·. Mahant Ram Dass
. : ·.s Muafidar faqir Udasi of the_year 1873. It' shows that the muafi
. . . · laod was granted by Rai· Kalha of Rai Kot to Baw~ Gulab Dass his · ·
. · .· . · great'grand Guru ·fo~. Bhog of Gnmth Sahib and for . the e:xpen.ses of .'
. · . the Dera and Faqirs. Mr. Phadke urged that the Mahan't. him~dr ..
· < ·has admitted that the grant ~as for Bal Bhog of Granth Sahib nnd :
• ~- · ·that this admission cooo1udes the point. ··· Th~ 1-:ligh Court : declined .
. · .C to ·ttc~t this ad'mission as conclu>ivc on th.-: ground thl.t the admis-
.... . . sion wns made more than a century afrcr the originnl grnnt and .
.
establishment of the institution und. three or four generations had
. jntcrvencd and_ the Ma.hant was talking about f~cts . which had
.
.bappend tong before his ~irth. These, in our opinion, are relevant
l> considerations for. not treating the admission as 'c onclusive more so
because the carli::r .e ntries do not either r.:fe{ to th; in.stitution as
Gurdwara or.m1ke any n~entilm of the worship of Granlh Sahib
.·
therein. ·
Mr. Phauke then' invited our attention to Ex. P-18 being on
·E order of ljlas·Y-Kh<ts Committee of the State of Patiala ·at 'he rele··
f \ ' 30ttime, :\CCording 'approval to· ·the succession- to the offic~ of '
Mahant of the institution. · In this order dated June 10, · 1.937 tb~
- instutition WJS described as: ' ··
.. . .
''Prem o'as ~-tahan't of ·oera of Ud.asi Bhc.l.:h· •·
(Gurd wara Sahib) situate at MahaJ Khurd Tehsil Barnala : ·
having died on 18.10.1982, the Administr;tive Committee· · ·
recommends appoint.ment of Rikhi Ram Chela of Narain .
Dass us Muhunt on the condition se t out in the order.;• : •
. .
•G :rhis order wus 'signed by Her Hi~hness M~harani -~f Patiala,·
the thc:u Prime Minister and Revenue M inistcr n'mongst otlt~rs. Mr.
Phadke emphasised that the institution apart fron\ b~ing ·.described
as. Dera of Udasi Bhdh is also de!scribcd as Gurdwara Sahib and.
therefore, it would show that WJ.Y back in 1937 the State nuthtJrities
'U had ac_~(ptcd the institution to be a Gurdwara. \Ve are not irnpres·,
ied by the submi~~ion for lb¢ obvious reason that the expression .
'Gurdwura' is in the bracket and primarily th~ institution is:dc~cribcd ..
as ~era o( U~<lsi Bhckh. . C'onceding that the use of the txprcssion ·
s.G.P.C. ·v. ~AHANT KiRPARAM (Desai, J.) 37'j .
- .
·OCoera' does not militate against the institut1on being a "Sikh Gut· A
dwara as held by this Court in the decision in Civil Appeal· No. 446
--of 1962 rendered on November 9, 1984 wherein, Sarkar, J ...speaking
for tbe Court observed that.'Dera' in m·any ·cases was synonymous
< ·•
:with a 'Gurdwara', a description of the institution as Dera of Udas'
'Bhekh would certainly have a distinct connotation ·Showing th·a t it.
·was an Udasi institution as recognised by the highest State authori- . B.
·ties. . The expression •Gurdwara Sahib • in the bracket may at best
·indicate .that the Granth Sahib was also venerated in the institution.
Mr. Phadke never drew our attention to ~xt. P-23 being· an
·e-,;tract from the,. register of mutations rel~ting to M~uza Mah.a l
Khurd dated September 27, . 1984. The entry under the column
·· ..~name of owner' with description r~ads: "Shri Guru G:anth Sahib ·
-situate in the Gurdwlra :of tl1e village under the management of
Rikhi Ram chela Partap Dass Faqir Udasi'~ '. Jn fact, these entries
~a~pear : to have been 'made in implementation of the order of
·the Jjlas-1-Khas and has no independent probative value. Ext. P-24 ·
D
i.s a similar eK.tract dated October 1; t959 and does- not advance
·the ~ase of the app~llants. any further.
Not much reliance w'as placed on the .oral evidence led by the
.·parties and therefore we refrain fro1n.. refcrring to it.
E
On the evidence as herein discu5sed, the question Is: whether .
. . ·~he view taken by the High Court· "that the institution catered to
·w_orship by people belonging ~o two different faith~, .naine.Iy; Udasis
:.and Sikhs is reasonable··and proper or calls, for inte.rferenc~7
In our opinion, ·the view . of the High Cour't. is reasdn_<~ble,
prop:!f and ju~t on the evidence placed on record, There is evidence
·to show that Gulab Ih~s who founded the institUtion Whs an Udasi
··F attit. It is satisfacto-rily es"tablished that the succession to the office
1o
-of Mahant is from Guru Chehr. H appears that the express'ion
.,G.urqwa'r a' qualifying ~he Dera of Udasis B.hekh in "the Government
records at a much later date. It is established that tne ori·gina1 ·gra'nt' G
·was by a Musliin ruler in favaur of a P:1qir and S1.dhu 6f Uda'i sect.
. ·On' this ev~dence atle'ast a negative con.c1usio~ would satisfactorily
emerge that the appellants have ,failed to prove that ~t was an·
:institution set up for use ~y Sikhs-for the purpose of publi~ worsh~p.
It must be conceded that nearly a centu'ry after the setth1g · up
a·
.~r the· institutio:1, Granth· Sahib was ven·erated an·d read in this
..
• 380. SUPREME COURT REPORTS · [1984] 3 s.c.. R ..
•
A. i~stitution. ·.Does it provide conclusive evid~nce that the institution
was set up and used for public worspip by Sikhs? In order to bring
the case UJ1der Sec. l6Ci) (iii) ·it must not o~ly be established that
.. the institution was ·established for use. by Sikhs fo·r the purpose of·
public worship but was used fo:r such worship by the Sikhs before
.. and at the time of the presentation of the petition. The use of ·-the
. conjuctive 'and, dearly imports that in order to attract Sec. 16(2)-
·. (iii), both the conditions must be cumulatively satisfied. Not
· was only that it must satisfactorily established that the institution
.
was established for use by Sikhs for' the 'purpose of public worship .
.- but was used for such worship . by the Sikhs before and at
the time of the presentation of the petition. It was so held in
c . Gurmukh Singhv.Risaldar Del'a Singh'& Ors.(1) and it our opinion tbat-
repres~nts the correct interpretation of Sec.._ 16(2) (iii). In fhis case-
' there. is no' .evidence to show tha.t the institt}tion was established
for use·by Sikhs for the purpose ofp\lblic wor§.hip. It must be conce-·
ded ~hat th~ institution mal;be established by anyene, may be a Si~z -
or follower of any other faith, but it must be establi~hed for use by·-
-Sikhs for the p~rpose of .wqrship. One can therefore,. ignore the
·fact ~hat th~ Q_riginal grantor was a Muslim. ··ruler Rai Kalha bu~
there is nothing to show that when ·aulab Dass Faquir of Udasi ·sect
established the institution, he did itfor .use by Si.khs for the pur-
E . pose of.public worship. Later on, as the majority of the population
of the village was follower of Shik-h religion. a:nd as Udasis a1S'<>·
· Ven~tate Granth Sahib, reading of Qranth Sahib may have com-.-
me:pc~d and 'therefore, generally speaking-_ people may describe and.
revenue· record may snow .it to .be Gurdwara but that would neither
F. be decisive of the character of the-institution no_r sufficient to·
.bring:
the institution within Sec. 16(2)(iii) <?f the Act .
• #
It is at· this stage necessary to point -opt the· distinction bet-
ween Sikhs ~nd _Udasis. In the past ft was attempted to be urged··
that Udasis are a· me~e order ·of Shikh preaqhers and that'there is no
G· differenc~ between two faiths. - In fact it was urged that they are. I .
not 'two separate faiths 'but two seperate interpretations _of the -sa~e:
faith.: Repelling this contention way back i~ Jfem Singfz. &. Ors. v.;
. Basm1t Das and 1hr.e>. It was observ·ed as· under ;
H
(l) AIR 1937 Lahore 577•
.(2) AIR 1936 PC 93 at 100. . '.
•.
S.G.P.C. V. MAHANT ~IRPARAM (Desai, J.) 381
"Indeed tlle Udasis do .not appear. to their Lordsliips
to.have been a mer~orde'r ofmendicant preachers among the
Sikhs. Nor can it be held· proved that they ·were merejy
Sikhs who had lapsed into Hindu practices. On the con- .
·trary, they appear. to have a long .and independent history as
a seperate sect or persuasion occupying a position some-
. where between the Sikns and the orthodox Hindus. The
..__..,. differences in belief as well as in practice between Sikhs and·
'r Udasis -deserve to be· described ~s seriou~, exte~sive and
inveterate and some were ·outwardly striking.'~· ·
•
. .
At another stage- it was observed that since tbe time of
Siri Chapd, the founder of Udasi sect there c.ame into existence ·a
c
sect of Udasis who, wbile u~ing the same sacre~ writings ·as the
.' Sikhs; kept up much· more of the 6Jd Hi11du practices, foiiowed
asceticism, were given to the veneration of Samadhs and tom.bs, .
=and continued ..the Hindu, ·rite' concerning birth, niar!iage _and
Sbradh. It was also obse-rved that the Udasis so far as the lnatter
can be decided by beliefs and pn!ctices, are, from the point of view
• of Sikhs, schis~atics who separated in the earliest days of the move-
men! and never merged thereafter. It wo.uld thus appear that Udasis
form an independent sect. They do venerate Sikh scriptures. There·
fore_, in an institution of Udasis sect, one ean visualise r'eading of -
Granth Sahib or .veneration of Sikh scriptur.es. ·That itselfis hot
decisive of the character of the insthution. On the contrary, jf the
j •
succession was from Guru to Chela and th@se Gurus we.re followers
of Udasis faith and·' the institution was known as Dera of. Udasi
Bhekh an~ they followed some· of tha practices~of ·Hindu traditional ·
re]igion that would be completely destructive of the character of the
as
institution. Sikh Gu1dw(\ra. In a. very recent decision of this Court
in Pritam.Dass Mahant v. Shirr;mani Gurdwara Prabhandhak Com•
mitteeP> it has been held that mere reading of Gfanth Sa:hib or yenc-
ration of Sikh scriptures is not decisive of the charac~er of the
institution because Udasis are midway between, Sikhs .on the one
h~nd "and Hindus on the other !lDd that the Udasis also venera~e
·Granth Sahib. Earlier also thi~ view has been consistently take_n·. by,
this Court as will app~ar from the .decision of this Court in Mahm1t -
Dh.aram Dass etc. ~."The State of Punjab and Ors :(~) ·~ ·
II
(1) C.A. Eo. 1983' of 1960 dated 16.2.8-4
(2)" [1975] ~ S.C.R. 160 at 168
'-
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] 3 S.C.R·
''They do not sub~cribe to idol worihip and poly-
J\ . .theism, nor do _they have any Samadhi ilf their shrines. The
teaching of Sikhs was against asceticism. They believe ·in·
Guru Grarith Sahib, which is a· Rosary of sacred poems,
exhortation!ietc. Duriag the ·time of the Sikh Gurus, the ·
Gurdwaras were under their ~irect supervision and control or
.. ,.
·:B under their Mascnds or missionary agents. After the death of
Guru Gobind Singh the Panth is recognised as th~ corporate '
repres'entative of the Guru on earth and thereafter they were
managed ~y tbe Panth through tht.ir Graotliis and .other
sewadars who were under direct supervision of the l~cal
San gat or congregation~ During Mahraja Ranjit Singh's time
·. ~-
Sikhism became the religion of the State and large estates and
Jagirs were granted. to the Gurdwaras, apart from the Jagirs
which had been earlier ·gra-nted dUTing the Mughal period.'
The position 6f the · Gurdwaras changed during British
regime. The Mahants who wwe in charge o.f the Sikh
. · tiurdwaras .·could either:. be a Sikh Mahant or Udasi .•
:D Mah~int." ·
. .It thus clearly appear~ that t'he appr~isal of the evide.nce .by .
the Hlgh Court fs correct and .unexceptional and-weight of the
evidence disCloses that ihe institution in questi'on was not shown to
E . have been est~blished ·for· use by Sikhs for the purpo·se of public
wotship and therefore on·e of'the material conditions for attracting·
Sec.:l6(2)(iib of the Act is not'estab)ished. It is immaterial that at
# • • • • • '
the time of ·presentation of the petition jt wM;· ·along .with the
follower of Udasi ·sect used for worship . of Granth .Sahib by the ·
Sikhs. We broadly. agree with the view taken· by the Hi~h . Court
'F· 'therefore these appeals fail and are. dismi!!sed with costs. Hearing
fee 'in one set.
,.
•
·G
N.V.K. . '
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Sikh Gurdwara"Sign in to search