Case: Pritam Dass Mahant Vs. Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee

The dispute in this appeal centres around a religious institution in village Ramgarh (also known a Bhagtuana), tehsil Faridkot, district Bhatinda. This village was previously in the erstwhile Nabha State which merged with Pepsu and after the reorganisation of the States, became a part of the Punjab State in 1956. Sixty-five persons claiming to be members of the Sikh community moved an application before the State Government under s. 7 (1) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by the Amendment Act I of 1959, to have the institution declared to be a Sikh Gurdwara. The State Government notified the said application in the Punjab Gazette in terms of s. 7 (3) of the Act on 18th October, 1963. Upon this the appellant made an application under ss. 8 and 10 of the Act claiming that the institution was not a Sikh Gurdwara but an Udasi institution known as Dera Bhai hagtu. This application was referred by the State Government to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal for adjudication. It was contended by the appellant that throughout its long history the institution has been an Udasi institution. This institution was not established for use by Sikhs for public worship. nor was it founded in the memory of a Sikh Martyr, saint or a historical person. It has never been used for public worship by the Sikhs. The institution was the Dera of Udasi Bhekh and the objects of worship are idols of Gola Sahib and of Baba Srichand, and the various samadhsThe petition was resisted by the respondent Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee on three grounds:(1) that the appellant was not competent to move the petition under s.7 of the Act because he was not a hereditary office holder,(2) that the provisions of the Ac t are not ultra vires the Constitution, and(3) that the institution in dispute was a Sikhpleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed three issues:whether the provisions of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution,(2) whether the appellant was a hereditary office holder, and(3) whether the institution in dispute was a Sikh Guradwara.Issue No. 1 was not pressed and, therefore, the Tribunal in conformity with the previous decisions held the provisions of the Act to be intra vires the Constitution. On the second issue the Tribunal recorded a finding in favour of the appellant. On the third issue, the Tribunal held that the disputed institution was a Sikh GurdwaraThe appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal took up the matter in appeal to the High Court and the High Court in its turn confirmed the findings of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal by the impugned judgment. The appellant has now come to his Court on obtaining special leave and the only issue that survives for consideration by this Court is issue No.3, that is, whether the institution in dispute is a Sikh Gurdwara.

Reasoning:
The finding of the High Court as extracted hereinbefore clearly show that the four important and most relevant aspects of the case as disclosed in the evidence were completely overlooked or side tracked by the High Court, They are: (i) there are Samadhs on the premises of the institution ;(ii) there are idols and photos of Hindu deities; (iii) Bhai Bhagtu was a Udasi Saint; and (iv) succession was from Guru so Chela. The petition filed by the appellant under s.8 of the Act contained a clear averment that the institution had been set up by Bhai Bhagtu who was a Udasi Saint and the presence of three Samadhs of (I) Bhai Bhagtu, (2) Baba Paras Ram Ji and (3) Mahant Sahib Dass Ji, was also asserted. In the written statement the respondent, after a vague denial, had admitted the institution to have been founded by Bhai Bhagtu.W 1, Ram Saran Dass stated that there was an idol of Baba Srichand in the institution and there were pictures of Lord Krishna and other Hindu deities. This statement was elicited in cross-examination made by the respondent. PW 2 has stated that there is an idol of Baba Srichand and Gola Sahib in the institution and they are objects of worship. PW 3, Bishan Dass, referred to the idol of Baba Shrichand. PW 4, Jagral stated that there were three or four samadhs on the premises of the institution and those are objects of worship There was no challenge to this statement in examination-in-chief by cross-examination. PW 5 was asked in cross examination whether there were Samadhs on the premises of the institution and his answer is revealing. He stated that there are three Samadhs on the premises of the institution and there is a dome over the Samadhs of Bhai Bhagtu. He added that there are other pictures of Hindu deities and Hindu Festivals are celebrated in the institution. PW 7, Surjit Singh, the local Sarpanch state d that the institution was of Udasi Fakirs. He also stated that there is a Samadh of Bhai Bhagtu on the premises of the institution and it is an object of worship. He indicated that the Samadh of Bhai Bhagtu was worshipped in a grand scale while the other two Samadhs were not treated on equal basis. There was no cross-examination of this witness on this aspect. Pritam Dass, the appellant did support his case. Ordinarily his evidence would have been treated as interested as he happens to be the party but his assertions have well corroboratedComing to the respondents side, the first witness Hardev Singh in his examination-in-chief stated that there is a Samadh of Bhai Bhagtu in the institution and another Samadh of his mother. On the basis of this admission of the principal witness of the respondent there can be on doubt that Samadhs exist within the institution. At the hearing counsel had pointed out that this witness was a member of the Communist Party. We do not think that would at all be a proper way of appreciating the evidence of the witnesses. He was a witness called by the respondent and was not declared hostile, if he made admissions in his examination-in-chief. On the other hand, the fact that he does not belong to the groups of either party and is a Communist would lend credence to his evidence as coming from an impartial source. The next witness, RW 2, Bachan Singh admitted the existence of the Samadhs but denied that the Samadh of Bhai Bhagtu was an object of worship. RW 3, Balbir Singh, admitted the presence of Samadh of Bhai Bhagtu as also of his mother. It is in the evidence of this witness that he also belongs to the Communist Party. What we have said about RW 1 equally applies to this witness. RW 4, Balwat Singh admitted the presence of Bhai Bhagtus Samadh; while RW 5, Hazura Singh stated that there were two Samadhs on the premises one of Bhai Bhagtu and the other of his mother. The last witness, RW 6, Gurdial Singh in his evidence admitted the existence of the two, Samadhs of Bhai Bhagtu and his mother.This analysis of the evidence clearly indicates that it has been unquestionably established without the slightest shadow of a doubt that there are at least two Samadhs on the premises of the institution-one being of Bhai Bhagtu and the other of his motherThe existence of the idol of Baba Srichand, the founder of the Udasi sect in the premises also seems to have be en fully established. As already stated, Sikhs would not permit the idol of Baba Srichand in a Gurdwara, while Udasis would ordinarily install such an idol to perpetuate the memory of the founder of their sectWhat emerges from this discussion is that as found by the Tribunal, the succession was from Guru to Chela; that Bhai Bhagtu was a Udasi Saint and there are Samadhs on the premises-one of Bhai Bhagtu and the other of his mother. Evidence shows that there are photos of Hindu deities i n the institution. These three facts, without anything more, would be sufficient to reject the case of the respondent that the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara. We would like to reiterate that existence of Samadhs and succession from Guru to Chela would clearly be destructive of character of the institution as a Sikh Gurdwara because they are inconsistent with the tenets of the Sikh religion. The issue before the High Court as also the Tribunal was whether the institution Dera Bhai Bhagtu w as a Sikh GurdwaraReference to another aspect would be relevant here. Counsel for the respondent emphasized the feature that there was evidence to show that Guru Granth Sahib was recited and read in this institution. It is well established that Udasis are mid-way between Sikhs on the one hand and Hindus on the other. Srichand, son of Guru Nanak, the founder of the Sikhism, had, as already indicated, broken away and set up the Udasi sect. Udasis while venerating Guru Granth Sahib, retained Hindu practices and also showed their veneration to the Samadhs. From the very fact that Guru Granth Sahib was recited in this institution, no support can be drawn for the claim that the institution was a Sikh Gurdwara.On the materials on record, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal as also the High Court are wholly unsupportable to satisfy the tests indicated in law for determining the character of the institution.