Supreme Court Dismisses Sikh Community's Plea Challenging District Judge's Nominations To Prabandhak Committee Of Takht Sri Patna Saheb

The Supreme Court today dismissed a petition filed against 3 nominations made by District Judge, Patna to the Prabandhak Committee managing affairs of Sri Takhat Harimandir Ji, Patna Saheb.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan passed the order, noting that the petitioner had not raised any argument regarding the 3 nominations leading to increase in the total strength of the Committee before the High Court.

To put briefly, the petitioner had initially approached the Patna High Court with a public interest litigation, contending that the District Judge, Patna ought not to have made the 3 nominations before elections were over, since it was de hors and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution and by-laws governing the formation of the Committee.

However, the petitioner's PIL was rejected with the observation, "the petitioners are concerned with the management of the religious place and it cannot be said that the community which has interest in the affairs of the institution and also the management of the same is either marginalized or downtrodden, requiring this Court to invoke the extraordinary discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, bypassing the other remedies available".

It was recorded that the nominations were made by the District Judge in his ex-officio capacity: "We find that the District Judge's role in the Constitution being one ex officio, he does not discharge any judicial function in that role, insofar as the Constitution and Bye-laws of the Patna Saheb are concerned".

"Prima facie, we are of the opinion that there is nothing mandating the nomination to be done after the election. Further, none of the other existing committee members have been impleaded in the present writ petition", the High Court further noted.

Ultimately, declining to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court held that the remedy available to any person aggrieved was civil remedy, wherein the community would also have to be represented. It was clarified that only the discretionary exercise of power was being declined, without validating the nominations in any manner.

Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Case Title: The Sikh Collective v. The State of Bihar and Ors., SLP(C) No. 12905/2024