'Several Disputed Facts': Sikkim High Court Dismisses Sikh Body's Plea To Restore Guru Granth Sahib, Religious Articles In Gurudwara

Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai said the case raised multifaceted questions of fact and legality that required examination in a civil court and was thus not suitable for resolution through Article 226 of the Constitution. 

“..the locus standi of the Petitioner No.1 is in dispute, the dismantling and removal of the articles on 16-08-2017 are in dispute, the articles alleged to have been handed and taken over by the Army to the civilians, respectively, is disputed. The method of removal of the articles is in dispute. The entity of the religious personalities is in dispute. It requires no reiteration that disputed questions of fact cannot be determined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution”.

Background:

The matter revolved around the alleged removal of sacred religious artefacts, including Guru Granth Sahib Ji, from a Gurudwara situated in Chungthang, Sikkim.

The petitioner body claimed to represent the Gurudwaras in Sikkim, as authorised by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. Historical background supported the existence of the Gurudwara near Gurudongmar Lake, with Guru Nanak Dev Ji visiting in 1516, and several official documents attest to its presence in 1998. It was also submitted that the state government was aware of its existence.

The petitioner contended that the Forest Department’s inspection in 1997 led to concerns about environmental impact and in response, a committee was formed, recommending removal of the Gurudwara. Subsequently, the Army agreed to hand over the structure for multi-faith worship, resolving this in 2000. However, in 2017, Gurudwara's articles were allegedly desecrated, causing a violation of religious rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Contesting the plea, the respondents admitted to dismantling the structure at Gurudongmar Tso on August 16, 2017, but they claimed that the articles were moved with the intention of relocation. The state also pointed out that the petitioner lacks standing and that the case involves disputed facts and religious history, making it unsuitable for resolution in a writ court.

Key Findings:

The court highlighted the complex nature of the case involving multiple disputed questions of fact, including the ownership of the land, the removal process, and the intentions behind the relocation. The Judge emphasized the lack of concrete evidence from both parties to substantiate their claims and noted that the petitioner had failed to convincingly establish the illegality of the removal.

The Court also reiterated that the state has the right to regulate and restrict religious activities if they conflict with public order, health, or morality, as per constitutional provisions. 

It further emphasised that the right to freedom of religion, as protected by Article 25, is fundamental but subject to certain limitations such as public order, morality, and health.

“Article 25 of the Constitution allows the State adequate legroom to rein in the circumstances which are not compliant with the constitutional provision. The right of the State to impose such restrictions as are desired or found necessary, for the purposes of public order, health and morality is inbuilt in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution”.

It noted that the land on which the disputed religious structures were constructed is claimed to be forest land. Use of forest land for non-forest purposes requires permission, which neither the petitioners nor the respondents had obtained. This raised a fundamental question of legality.

The court observed that the allegations and counter-allegations regarding the alleged desecration of religious articles, the dismantling of the structures, and the handover of religious articles were in dispute. These were complex issues of fact that required detailed examination.

Pointing out the intricate nature of the case and the necessity for a meticulous examination of facts, the court concluded that this case was not suitable for resolution through a writ petition under Article 226 and deemed it essential for a civil court to delve into the multifaceted aspects of the dispute.

“The Petition at hand raises complicated questions of fact for appropriate and just determination, for which oral evidence is imperative and all parties are to be afforded an opportunity for such an exercise..the claims of title to the property on which the structures were constructed requires to be given a quietus before the Petitioners and the Respondents raise other issues for determination, such declaration cannot be made by this Court”, the bench maintained.

As such, the bench dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Sri Guru Singh Sabha and Another Vs The State of Sikkim

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Sik) 9

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment