Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Act, Settles Inter-State Body Corporate Issue: Harbajan Singh vs. State of Haryana (20 September 2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2022
Citation: Not Available

Judges: Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Vikram Nath. The judgment was authored by Justice Hemant Gupta.

Can a state legislature enact laws regarding the management of religious institutions that were previously managed by an inter-state body corporate? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a significant judgment concerning the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014. The core issue revolved around whether the State of Haryana had the legislative competence to enact a law that effectively created a separate body for managing Sikh Gurdwaras within the state, or if this power rested exclusively with the Parliament.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Haryana Act’), which sought to establish a separate entity for managing historical Gurdwaras in Haryana. Previously, these Gurdwaras were managed by the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925. The Haryana Act categorized Gurdwaras into three schedules based on their income: Schedule I for historical Gurdwaras, Schedule II for those with income over Rs. 20 lakhs, and Schedule III for those with income less than Rs. 20 lakhs.

The primary petitioners, including a resident of Haryana and an elected representative of the SGPC, argued that the Haryana Act was unconstitutional, violated the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and infringed upon their fundamental rights. The SGPC also filed a separate writ petition challenging the Haryana Act on similar grounds. The State of Haryana and the newly formed Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Managing Committee (Haryana Committee) defended the Act, while the Union of India asserted that only Parliament had the power to legislate on this matter.

The petitioners contended that the SGPC, being an inter-state body corporate, could only be reorganized or dissolved through a scheme approved by the Central Government under the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957. They argued that the Haryana Act was an attempt to bypass this procedure and that it violated the rights of the Sikh community to manage their religious affairs.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The writ petitions were filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Haryana Act. The State of Haryana and the Haryana Committee defended the Act, while the SGPC and the Union of India opposed it. The Union of India argued that the Haryana Act encroached upon the powers of the Parliament and that the SGPC, being an inter-state body corporate, could only be dealt with through the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957. The State of Punjab also supported the petitioners, stating that the power to legislate on inter-state bodies corporate was reserved for the Central Government.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily considered the following legal provisions:

• Article 246 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the subject matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States.
• Entry 32 of List II, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India: This entry empowers the State legislature to make laws regarding “Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, other than those specified in List I, and universities; unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations; co-operative societies.”
• Entry 44 of List I, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India: This entry grants the Union Parliament the power to legislate on “Incorporation, regulation and winding up of corporations, whether trading or not, with objects not confined to one State, but not including universities.”
• Section 72 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: This section deals with the continuation of bodies corporate constituted for the existing State of Punjab and their functioning in the successor states. It specifies that such bodies shall continue to operate subject to the directions of the Central Government until other provisions are made by law.

  The relevant extract from Section 72(1) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 is:
  
  “Save as otherwise expressly provided by the foregoing provisions of this Part, where any body corporate constituted under a Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act for the existing State of Punjab or any part thereof serves the needs of the successor States or has, by virtue of the provisions of Part II, become an inter-State body corporate, then, the body corporate shall, on and from the appointed day continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before that day, subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Central Government, until other provision is made by law in respect of the said body corporate.”

  Section 72(3) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 clarifies that this section applies to the Board constituted under Part III of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.
  
  “(3) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that the provisions of this section shall apply also to the Punjab University constituted under the Punjab University Act, 1947, the Punjab Agricultural University constituted under the Punjab Agricultural University Act, 1961, and the Board constituted under the provisions of Part III of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.”

• Section 3 of the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957: This section empowers State Governments to frame schemes for the reconstitution, reorganization, or dissolution of inter-state corporations.

  The relevant extract from Section 3 of the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957 is:
  
  “If it appears to the Government of a State in any part of which an inter-State corporation is functioning that the inter-State corporation should be reconstituted and reorganized as, one or more inter-State corporations or that it should be dissolved, the State Government may frame a scheme for such reconstitution and reorganisation or such dissolution, as the case may be, including proposals regarding the transfer of the assets, rights and liabilities of the inter-State corporation to any other corporations or State Governments and the transfer or re-employment of employees of the inter-State corporation and forward the scheme to the Central Government.”

• Section 4 of the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957: This section outlines the power of the Central Government to approve schemes for inter-state corporations.

  The relevant extract from Section 4(1) of the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957 is:
  
  “On receipt of a scheme forwarded to it under section 3, the Central Government may, after consulting the State Governments concerned, approve the scheme with or without modifications and give effect to the scheme so approved by making such order as it thinks fit.”

• Article 25 of the Constitution of India: This article guarantees the freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion.
• Article 26 of the Constitution of India: This article provides for the freedom to manage religious affairs.

Arguments

The arguments presented by the various parties can be categorized as follows:

• Petitioners (Harbhajan Singh and SGPC):
  • The Haryana Act is unconstitutional as it infringes upon the fundamental rights of the Sikh community under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
  • The SGPC, being an inter-state body corporate, can only be reorganized or dissolved through a scheme approved by the Central Government under the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957.
  • The Haryana Act is an attempt to bypass the procedure prescribed under the 1957 Act and is therefore, invalid.
  • The State of Haryana lacks legislative competence to enact a law that curtails the jurisdiction of the SGPC, which is an inter-state body corporate.
  • The Haryana Act is not creating a society or a corporation at the state level but it seeks to curtail the jurisdiction of the 1925 Act, therefore, it is not an enactment with reference to Entry 32 List II.
  • The Haryana Act adversely impacts the unity of management of religious places of worship and takes away the management of the Gurdwaras from the control of SGPC.
  • The Haryana Act violates the mandate of Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution.
• State of Haryana and Haryana Committee:
  • The Haryana Act is within the legislative competence of the State under Entry 32 of List II of the Seventh Schedule, which allows the state to legislate on religious societies and associations.
  • The Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, was a transitional provision to facilitate the reorganization of the State of Punjab.
  • Section 72 of the 1966 Act was only a temporary measure until the successor states made their own laws.
  • The Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957, was also a transitional provision for the reorganization of corporations functioning in multiple states.
  • The Haryana Act is similar to the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, and provides a democratic framework for the management of religious affairs.
  • The State is competent to frame laws in respect of universities, unincorporated trading, literary, scientific “religious and other societies” and associations. This express power has not been conferred on the Parliament under Entry 44, List I.
• Union of India:
  • The Haryana Act amounts to winding up of the Board constituted under the 1925 Act, whose functions fall under Entry 44 of List I.
  • Only Parliament has the exclusive power to enact law on the said subject.
  • The State of Haryana had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned Haryana Act, taking away the jurisdiction of the Board constituted under the 1925 Act.
• State of Punjab:
  • The power to make law in respect of the SGPC as an Inter-State Body Corporate has been reserved to the Central Government only.
  • There is no provision in law for bifurcation of the said Inter-State Body Corporate or replacement thereof by enacting a State legislation.
  • The enactment of the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 in purported exercise of legislative competence under Entry 32 of List-II of Schedule 7 is wholly unconstitutional and trespasses into a field exclusively reserved for Parliamentary legislation.
  • The Central Government’s power to issue directions (for the above limited purpose) and the competence of Parliament to legislate are different. The existence of one does not imply the existence of the other.
  • The State has the power to enact necessary legislation as regards “religious and other societies and association” – (List 2-Entry 32).

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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?
2. 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 the creation of separate States?
3. Whether the impugned enactment (Haryana Act) falls within the legislative competence of the Haryana State Legislature or does it fall under Entry 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution?
4. Whether the Impugned Act falls in List-III (Concurrent List) of 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?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Smt. Swaran Lata v. Union of India & Ors. [(1979) 3 SCC 165]*: The Court relied on this case to hold that directions from the Central Government are for a limited purpose, i.e., for the implementation of the scheme for the reorganisation of services and were transitional in nature.

✓ D.A.V. College, Etc. Etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [(1971) 2 SCC 269]*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that if a law does not affect fundamental rights, it is not necessary to examine legislative competence.

✓ Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College Managing Committee v. The State of Punjab & Ors. [1971 SCC OnLine P&H 257]*: The Court relied on this case to hold that the power of the Central Government to issue directions was for a limited period, i.e., till other provisions were made by law by the appropriate legislature.

✓ Sehajdhari Sikh Federation v. Union of India & Ors. [2012 (1) ILR Punjab and Haryana 347]*: The Court cited this case to hold that the Central Government cannot issue a direction that has the effect of modifying the statute.

✓ Kashmir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [2002 SCC OnLine P&H 766]*: The Court referred to this case to discuss the nature of the SGPC as an inter-state body corporate and the power of the Central Government to issue directions.

✓ Kashmir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 259]*: The Court relied on this case to hold that the successor states may adopt, modify or repeal the 1925 Act.

✓ Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla v. Punjab University, Chandigarh & Ors. [(1996) 11 SCC 411]*: The Court cited this case to show that the vesting of assets of an inter-state corporation was not the issue in the present matter.

✓ Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 3 SCC 643]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was in respect of irrigation or water projects and not applicable to the present case.

✓ Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah & Anr. [2021 SCC OnLine SC 474]*: The Court distinguished this case stating that this case was in respect of co-operative societies and not applicable to the present matter.

✓ Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab [(1972) 1 SCC 171]*: The Court relied on this case to hold that the instructions issued under Section 84 of the 1966 Act were supplemental, incidental or consequential provisions under the reorganisation of the States.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the understanding that the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, and the Inter-State Corporation Act, 1957, were transitional provisions intended to ensure the smooth functioning of bodies corporate during the reorganization of states. The Court emphasized that these acts did not take away the legislative competence of the State legislatures to enact laws on subjects falling under List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The Court also underscored that the Haryana Act was similar to the 1925 Act and that the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State were to be managed by the Sikhs alone.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, ruling that the State of Haryana had the legislative competence to enact the law. The Court held that the Act does not violate the fundamental rights of the Sikh community and that the 1966 and 1957 Acts were transitional provisions. The Court dismissed the petitions, thus affirming the validity of the Haryana Act.