Sikkim High Court dismisses Sikh body's plea to restore Guru Granth Sahib, religious articles in Gurudwara

The Sikkim High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Sri Guru Singh Sabha, a Sikh body, seeking the restoration of Guru Granth Sahib and other religious articles in a Gurudwara which were removed from the Gurudwara in 2017 and have been at the centre of a heated legal battle.

According to Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, the case involved complex factual and legal issues that required scrutiny in a civil court and were hence ineligible for settlement under 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”.

It should be noted that the case involved the alleged theft of priceless religious objects, including Guru Granth Sahib Ji, from a Gurudwara in Chungthang, Sikkim. 

Also Read: Sikkim: National Hydroelectric Power Corporation extends Rs 3 crore financial aid to CM relief fund

Furthermore, the petitioner entity claimed to be licenced by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee to represent the Gurudwaras in Sikkim. The presence of the Gurudwara at Gurudongmar Lake was verified by historical evidence, with Guru Nanak Dev Ji visiting in 1516, and various government records witness to its existence in 1998. It was also claimed that the state government was aware of the existence of the organisation.

The petitioner claimed that a Forest Department investigation in 1997 raised environmental issues, prompting the formation of a committee that recommended the destruction of the Gurudwara. Following that, the Army decided to hand up the edifice for multi-faith worship, which was completed in 2000. 

However, the articles of the Gurudwara were reportedly desecrated in 2017, resulting in a breach of religious liberties under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Responding to the appeal, the respondents agreed to tearing down the building at Gurudongmar Tso on August 16, 2017, but stated that the objects were transferred with the goal of relocating them. The state further claimed that the petitioner lacked standing and that the matter included contested facts and religious history, rendering it unfit for settlement in a writ court. 

The court emphasised the case's complexity, which involved several contested factual issues, including the ownership of the property, the removal method, and the purpose behind the move. The Judge emphasised both parties' lack of solid evidence to corroborate their allegations and remarked that the petitioner had failed to show the illegality of the removal persuasively.

According to constitutional provisions, the state has the power to control and prohibit religious activities if they interfere with public order, health, or morals. It further stressed that the right to religious freedom, as guaranteed by Article 25, is vital but subject to certain constraints 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 was mentioned that the site where the contested religious structures were built is alleged to be forest property. The petitioners and respondents had not secured authorization to use forest land for non-forest uses. This raised a basic legal issue. The court noted that the claims and counter-allegations concerning alleged destruction of religious artefacts, deconstruction of buildings, and handover of sacred articles were in dispute. These were difficult factual concerns that demanded close scrutiny.

The court concluded that this case was not suitable for resolution through a writ petition under Article 226 and that a civil court was required to delve into the multifaceted aspects of the dispute, citing the intricate nature of the case and the need for a meticulous examination of facts.

“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.