"Singh" Or "Kour" Surnames Not Mandatory For Sikh Identity: J&K High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Gurudwara Committee Election

At the outset, Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal referred to J&K Sikh Gurudwara & Religious Endowment Act, 1973 and observed,

“The contention of the petitioner, which has been raised by the appellant/petitioner herein before the appellate authority is contrary to the definition laid down in the Act of 1973, which is not acceptable and the same cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. There are many people, who do not have “Sikh or Kour” as their Sir names, but still they are recognized as Sikh, as they preach Sikhism”.

The petitioner, who contested and lost the DGPC election in Akhnoor, had challenged the results on various grounds. One key contention was that the electoral roll contained names of non-Sikhs, identified by the absence of "Singh" or "Kour" in their surnames.

He argued that this violated the Jammu and Kashmir Sikh Gurudwara and Religious Endowment Rules, 1975, which define a Sikh as someone who believes in the ten Gurus and Guru Granth Sahib and keeps Keshas (long hair).

The petitioner further argued that the inclusion of non-Sikhs in the electoral roll had vitiated the entire election process and he also raised concerns about duplicate entries and deceased voters allegedly casting votes.

After considering the contentions raised the bench scrutinised the rules applicable and observed that the appellate authority had rightly held the petitioner's contentions as contradictory to the definitions laid down in Sections 2(e) and 2(f) of the Act of 1973.

Rejecting the argument that having "Singh and Kour" as surnames should be mandatory for Sikh recognition, the bench stated that such a contention was not in line with the legal definitions.

“There are many people, who do not have “Sikh or Kour” their Sir names, but still they are recognized as Sikh, as they preach Sikhism. This aspect of the matter has gone in detail by the appellate authority and this Court concur with the finding recorded by the appellate authority and do not find any legal infirmity with the same”, Justice Nargal recorded.

The court further noted that the petitioner had not raised any objections regarding the electoral roll during the designated period for claims and objections. It observed that raising such issues at a later stage, after participating in the entire election process was not permissible.

“This is a peculiar case, where the appellant having failed to avail the opportunity of filing of claims and objections during the notified period and taking a chance to participate in the election and subsequently having failed, has turned around by filing the instant petition on false and flimsy grounds without any basis”, said the court.

Accordingly, the court upheld the order of the appellate authority, dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit and substance.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 10

Case Title: Sukhjit Singh Vs UT of J & K

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment