Harbhajan Singh vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Constitution of India: Legislative competence – Whether the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 falls within the legislative competence of the Haryana State Legislature or it falls in Entry 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution – Held: There is no provision in the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 which confers legislative power upon the Parliament in respect of the subjects over which the State has legislative competence in terms of List II – Therefore, the transitional provisions i.e., the 1966 Act or the Inter-State Corporation Act 1957 do not impinge upon the legislative competence of the State legislature to enact a law on the subjects mentioned in the List II – Entry 32 deals with unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations – In respect of such matters, the competent legislature is the State – In terms of Entry 44 of List I, the Parliament will have jurisdiction only if the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 continues to be an inter-State entity – The jurisdiction of the successor States either to repeal, modify or enact a new law has not been restricted by the 1966 Act – The SGPC became inter-State body corporate not because of Entry 44 List I 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 2014 Act – Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 – Religious institutions – Gurdwara.

Constitution of India: Art. 254(2) – Presidential assent – Whether required for Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 – Held: For entries in concurrent list, assent of the President would be necessary if there is an existing statute and the State law is contrary to some of the provisions of the Central law – Though the Haryana Committee constituted under the 2014 Act is in respect of religious purposes, but the prime intention is of an incorporation of juristic entity to manage the affairs of the Sikhs in the State – Incorporation of such juristic entity more appropriately falls within the domain of Entry 32 of List II and not within Entry 28 of List III of Seventh Schedule – Assent of the President is not required for the validity of 2014 Act.

Constitution of India: Arts. 25 and 26 – Right to freedom of religion – Whether Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014 violates fundamental rights of the petitioners under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution so as to entitle the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction under Art.32 of the Constitution – Held: 2014 Act is similar to the 1925 Act, inter alia having similar provisions of constituting a committee to manage the affairs under the Act – The affairs of the religious minority in the State i.e., Sikhs is left in the hands of the Sikhs alone 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, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Arts. 25 and 26 of the Constitution – Writ petition is maintainable on the ground that the said writ petitions have been pending before this Court for almost 8 years wherein an interim order has been in operation throughout – Additionally, the questions, being purely legal, have been examined to give finality to the issues arising in the two matters.

Dismissing the writ petitions and the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 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 creation of separate States?

1.1 The 1957 Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions from time to time so that on account of creation of separate States, such statutory bodies in the new States can function smoothly. It defines the “inter-State corporation” as any body corporate constituted under any of the Acts specified in the Schedule and functioning in two or more States by virtue of Section

109 of the 1956 Act. Therefore, in respect of such inter-State corporations, the Central Government could issue directions in terms of the 1957 Act only to give effect to the reorganisation of States so that the inter-state entity is able to function and discharge the statutory mandate in the States so constituted. Such directions were transitional in nature so that the functioning of inter-State corporations is not obstructed or curtailed on account of reorganisation of the States. Neither the 1956 Act nor the 1966 Act nor the 1957 Act has taken away the legislative competence of the States to legislate on the subjects which finds mention in List II of the Seventh Schedule and/or in respect of matters falling in List III of the Seventh Schedule in the manner prescribed. The 1956 Act or the 1966 Act empowers the Central Government to issue directions to make the inter-state entity functional, but the Central Government has not been empowered to legislate in respect of such inter-State bodies which came to be operational in one or more States due to the reorganisation of the States. [Paras 32 and 33][1141-F-H; 1142-A-B]

1.2 The power of the Centre to issue directions under Section 72 of the 1966 Act is a transitional provision to ensure smooth and continuous functioning of a body corporate so that it is not paralyzed on becoming an inter-State body corporate due to reorganisation of the erstwhile State of Punjab. The directions contemplated by Section 72 relates to functioning and operation of such body corporate. A competent State legislature is not deprived of its power to legislate on the subjects falling within its jurisdiction in terms of List II of the Seventh Schedule. The 1966 Act does not bar the State Legislature to legislate on the fields of its legislative competence falling under List II of the Seventh Schedule or even in List III of the Seventh Schedule, subject to the limitations as are prescribed in the Constitution [Para 46][1160-A-C]

2. Whether the impugned enactment (Haryana Act of 2014) falls within the legislative competence of the Haryana State Legislature or it falls in Entry 44 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution?

2.1 The SGPC was a Board which was intra-State body corporate prior to reorganisation of the State in the year 1966. The reorganisation has rendered the SGPC as an inter-State body corporate but the legislative power to legislate on the subject of incorporation of the Corporations would be within the jurisdiction of the Haryana State Legislature. Entry 32 deals with unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations. In respect of such unincorporated trading, literary, scientific, religious and other societies and associations, the competent legislature is the State. In terms of Entry 44 of List I, the Parliament will have jurisdiction only if the SGPC under the 1925 Act continues to be an inter-State entity. The jurisdiction of the successor States either to repeal, modify or enact a new law has not been restricted by the 1966 Act, though it is a special law within the meaning of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Constitution. The SGPC became inter-State body corporate not because of Entry 44 List I 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. [Para 48][1162E-H; 1163-A]

2.2 The 1966 Act as well as the 1957 Act confer power on the Central Government for smooth transition of new States coming into existence as a consequence of the reorganization. There is no provision in the 1966 Act which confers legislative power upon the Parliament in respect of the subjects over which the State has legislative competence in terms of List II. Therefore, the transitional provisions i.e., the 1966 Act or the 1957 Act do not impinge upon the legislative competence of the State legislature to enact a law on the subjects mentioned in the List II. [Para 51][1163-F-G]

3. Whether, the impugned Act falls in List-III (Concurrent List) 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?

3.1 The impugned Haryana Act does not fall in Entry 28 of List III of the Seventh Schedule. Entry 28 covers Charities and charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions. In view of such Entry being in the concurrent list, the State can legislate in respect of charities, charitable institutions, charitable and religious endowments and religious institutions. The assent of the President would be necessary if there is an existing statute and the State law is contrary to some of the provisions of the Central law. The Haryana Committee is the incorporation of a juristic entity which more appropriately falls within the domain of Entry 32 of List II. Though the Haryana Committee is in respect of religious purpose, but the prime intention is of an incorporation of a juristic entity to manage the affairs of the Sikhs in the State. Thus, Entry 32 is wide enough to include incorporation of such statutory entity. [Paras 52 and 53][1164-A-D]

3.2 Even if it is assumed that the Haryana Act is in furtherance of Entry 28 of List III, the same cannot be said to be void for the reason that it has not been kept reserved for the assent of the President. Such an argument is based upon the reason that the 1925 Act is an inter-State legislation, therefore, the assent of the President is necessary. The 1925 Act was originally an intra-State legislation enacted by the State legislature. It subsequently became an inter-State body only by virtue of the 1966 Act. Since the power to legislate conferred on the State legislature has not been affected in any manner, therefore, the State would have power to legislate both under Entry 28 of List III or Entry 32 of List II for the reason that the 1925 Act is not an inter-State body corporate in respect of which the Parliament incorporated such Board. [Para 54][1164-D-F]

4. 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?

4.1 The Haryana Act of 2014 is similar to the 1925 Act having similar provisions of constituting a committee to manage the affairs under the Act. The Haryana Committee is the Committee constituted under Section 3 of the Haryana Act for the management and control of the Gurdwaras and Gurdwara properties within the State of Haryana. The Gurdwara property in terms of Section 2(f) of the Haryana Act means all movable and immovable properties of a Gurdwara or any institution which, immediately before the appointed day, vested or was kept in deposit in the name of any Board, Trust, Committee, Gurdwara Management or was being regulated under the provisions of the 1925 Act. The members of the Committee have to be elected from the eligible voters who is Amritdhari Sikh, a Sikh, and who is eighteen years of age, but not a Patit Sikh and is not an insolvent, mentally retarded or an insane person. The co-option is from the members of the community alone. Therefore, the affairs of the religious minority in the State i.e., Sikhs is left in the hands of the Sikhs alone in the same manner as was under the 1925 Act. The Haryana Act also provides for Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission in the same manner as is provided under the 1925 Act. The affairs of the Gurdwara are again required to be managed by local Gurdwara Committee. Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. [Para 55][1164-H; 1165-A-D]

4.2 The writ petition is maintainable on the ground that the said writ petitions have been pending before this Court for almost

8 years wherein an interim order has been in operation throughout. Additionally, the questions, being purely legal, have been examined to give finality to the issues arising in the two matters [Para 56][1165-E]

5. In Civil appeal no.6614 of 2022, the appellant was appointed for five years as Additional Commissioner Gurdwara Elections on 29.8.2014. The post of Additional Commissioner Gurdwara Elections was under the Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 2014. The vires of the aforesaid Act stands upheld by this Court. The appellant has not discharged any functions in view of the stay by this Court. Therefore, the appointment was rescinded. The appellant was appointed for a period of five years, even the term for which the appellant was appointed has come to an end by afflux of time. Therefore, the appellant has no subsisting cause in the present appeal. [Paras 59, 60 and 61][1165-H; 1166-A-B]

Sehajdari Sikh Federation Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2011 SCC Online P&H 17374; Dayanand Anglo-Vedic College Managing Committee v. The State of Punjab & Ors. 1971 SCC OnLine P&H 257; Kashmir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. 2002 SCC OnLine P&H 766 – Approved .

Union of India v. Rajendra N. Shah & Anr. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 474 – held inapplicable.

Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 3 SCC 643 : [2006] 2 SCR 740 – Distinguished.

Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla v. Punjab

University, Chandigarh & Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 411; Kashmir Singh v. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 7 SCC

259 : [2008] 8 SCR 464; D.A.V. College, Etc. Etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (1971) 2 SCC 269: [1971] Suppl. SCR 677 – relied on.

Smt. Swaran Lata v. Union of India & Ors. (1979) 3 SCC 165 : [1979] 2 SCR 953; Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab (1972) 1 SCC 171; Maa Vaishno Devi Mahila Mahavidyalaya v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2013)

2 SCC 617 : [2012] 13 SCR 810; Nazir Ahmad v. The King-Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 (2); State of Kerala & Ors. v. Kerala Rare Earth and Minerals Limited & Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 323:[2016] 5 SCR 515 – referred to.