Summary
The Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 created a separate Haryana committee to manage Gurdwaras in Haryana, taking them out of the control of the SGPC, the Board under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. The SGPC had become an inter-State body corporate when Punjab was reorganised. A Sikh voter and the SGPC, supported by the Union, challenged the Act under Article 32. They argued that only Parliament could legislate under Entry 44 of List I or Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957, and that the Act violated Articles 25 and 26. The Supreme Court upheld the Act. The Union's power to issue directions under Section 72 was transitional and did not displace the successor States' competence under Entry 32 of List II. Entry 28 of List III was not attracted, and Sikhs alone still manage the Gurdwaras.
Issues
- Whether Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957 are transitional provisions
- Whether the Haryana Act falls within the State's competence under Entry 32 of List II or within Parliament's exclusive field under Entry 44 of List I
- Whether the Haryana Act falls under Entry 28 of List III and is void for want of Presidential assent under Article 254(2)
- Whether the Haryana Act violates Articles 25 and 26
Provisions considered
- Sections 72, 88 and 89, Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966Section 72 lets an inter-State body corporate, including the Board under Part III of the 1925 Act, function under Central directions only 'until other provision is made by law'. It is transitional and does not bar the successor States from legislating on List II subjects. (¶¶ 6, 45, 46)
- Sections 2 to 5, Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957The 1957 Act, like the 1966 Act, empowers the Central Government only for the smooth transition after reorganisation and confers no legislative power on Parliament over subjects in List II. (¶¶ 9, 32, 50, 51)
- Article 246; Seventh Schedule, List II Entry 32, List I Entry 44, List III Entry 28, Constitution of IndiaIncorporating a statutory body to manage Gurdwaras in Haryana falls within Entry 32 of List II. Entry 44 does not apply, because the SGPC became inter-State only through reorganisation. Entry 28 of List III is not attracted, so assent under Article 254(2) was unnecessary. (¶¶ 48, 51, 52, 53, 54)
- Articles 25 and 26, Constitution of IndiaThe Haryana Act mirrors the 1925 Act and leaves management of the Gurdwaras to elected Sikhs, so no fundamental right is infringed. (¶ 55)
Held
- The consistent view of three Full Benches of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and of the Supreme Court in Kashmir Singh is that the Union's power to issue directions under Section 72 is transitional. It exists to ensure that a body corporate does not become paralysed on becoming inter-State, and it does not take away the competence of State Legislatures under Lists II and III. A successor State may adopt, modify or repeal the 1925 Act, and the Board then ceases to be an inter-State body corporate. (¶¶ 35, 37, 43, 44, 45, 46)
- The Haryana Act has no extra-territorial operation. The SGPC was an intra-State body before 1966 and became inter-State only because of reorganisation, not because of Entry 44 of List I. Rajendra N. Shah, concerning multi-State co-operative societies, does not apply. Incorporating a juristic entity to manage Gurdwaras in the State falls within Entry 32 of List II. (¶¶ 47, 48, 49, 51, 53)
- Because the Act falls under Entry 32 of List II, Entry 28 of List III does not arise. Even if it did, the 1925 Act was originally a State law and the State's legislative power was unaffected, so the absence of Presidential assent under Article 254(2) does not invalidate it. (¶¶ 52, 53, 54)
- The Haryana Committee is elected from Sikh voters, co-option is only from the community, and the Act provides a judicial commission and local committees as the 1925 Act does. Management of the Sikh minority's affairs remains with Sikhs, so Articles 25 and 26 are not violated. The legal questions were nonetheless decided, given eight years of pendency under an interim order. (¶¶ 55, 56)
- In the connected appeal, the appointment of an Additional Commissioner Gurdwara Elections under the Haryana Act was rescinded while the Act was stayed. His five-year term had in any case expired, so no subsisting cause remained. (¶¶ 58, 59, 60, 61)
Result
Writ petitions dismissed and the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 upheld. Civil Appeal No. 6614 of 2022 dismissed as having no subsisting cause.