Case Name: Sri Guru Singh Sabha and Another vs. The State of Sikkim through the Secretary, Ecclesiastical Department and Others
Case Number: WP(C) No. 49 of 2017
Dated on: 10th October, 2023
Quorum: Single Bench – The Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, Judge
FACTS OF THE CASE
The petitioners allege that religious articles were removed from a Gurdwara without proper rituals. The respondents counter that they were relocated to facilitate government development works. The land on which the Gurudwara and Monastery were situated is claimed to be forest land by the state respondents. Both parties present conflicting accounts regarding the removal and relocation of the religious articles. The court refers to various legal principles, including those related to environmental protection, religious freedom, and the jurisdiction of writ courts. The court determines that the issues raised require extensive evidence and are better suited for resolution in a civil court. The court dismisses the writ petition. Each party is directed to bear their own costs.
ISSUES
- Whether the removal and relocation of religious articles from a Gurudwara constituted desecration and if it was done in compliance with religious rituals.
- Whether the construction of structures for offering worship on forest land without permission violated relevant laws and regulations.
- Whether the rights to religious freedom under Article 25 of the Constitution were infringed upon due to the alleged unauthorised actions concerning the religious articles and structures.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the High Court to issue prerogative writs for enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose.
- Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, which regulates the use of forest land for non-forest purposes and requires prior approval from the Central Government for any such activities.
- Directive Principles of State Policy, specifically Article 48A, which mandates the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests.
- Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, which guarantee the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, subject to certain restrictions for public order, morality, and health.
- Public Trust Doctrine, which establishes the State as a trustee of natural resources and imposes a legal duty to protect them.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT
The Petitioner No.1 alleges that the removal of the Guru Granth Sahib Ji was done without the requisite preceding religious rituals and was orchestrated by Respondent No.4, in collusion with the State-Respondents. The Petitioner contends that the construction by the Army was intended to serve as a “Dharma Sthal,” a place of worship for all faiths, while Respondent No.4 argues that the location is specifically for Buddhist worship. The Petitioner emphasises the importance of religious freedom, invoking Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. The Petitioner argues that every public authority has a duty, coupled with power, and should understand the object and conditions under which such power is exercised. The Petitioner highlights the High Court’s jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of fact, citing case law to support the argument. The Petitioner also raises concerns about the failure to implement the Lachen Monastery as a necessary party in the proceedings. Overall, the Petitioner asserts that there are disputed questions of fact that require extensive evidence and are not suitable for determination in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent argues that the petitioner has failed to establish the existence of a Gurdwara through their averments in the petition. They assert that the inventory was prepared and articles were handed over to the Lachen Monastery in accordance with a receipt dated 06-07-2001. The respondent contends that the alleged desecration of religious articles is a fabrication by the petitioner. They claim that the removal of religious items on 16-08-2017 was part of a unanimous decision by the Lachen Monk Committee and the Lachen public to relocate the religious items to facilitate government development works. The respondent denies any involvement in the removal of articles from outside the Chungthang Gurudwara, stating that representatives of the Gurudwara requested the relocation of these articles to the Lachen Monastery. The respondent challenges the assertion that the location was intended to be a place of worship for all faiths, arguing that it is specifically designated for Buddhist worship. Additionally, the respondent argues that the petitioner’s invocation of Article 25 of the Constitution does not absolve them from the requirement to obtain permission for the construction of structures on forest land for non-forest purposes. The respondent disputes the petitioner’s reliance on case law regarding the High Court’s jurisdiction to determine questions of fact, asserting that the disputed questions in this case are not suitable for determination under Article 226 of the Constitution. Lastly, the respondent maintains that the petitioner has failed to implement the Lachen Monastery as a necessary party in the proceedings, which complicates the determination of certain issues in the case.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The court begins by emphasising the discretionary and equitable nature of the jurisdiction conferred upon it by Article 226 of the Constitution. It underscores that a writ proceeding cannot serve as a substitute for a civil suit, as the jurisdiction of the civil court is expansive. It highlights that the land on which the structures were situated is claimed to be forest land by the state respondents, which falls under the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. However, neither the petitioners nor the respondent established acquisition of the land or sought permission from the Forest Department for non-forest purposes. The court delves into the disputed removal of religious articles, noting conflicting assertions from both parties regarding the events surrounding the removal. It emphasises the importance of environmental protection, citing legal principles and obligations related to forest conservation and pollution prevention. Addressing the petitioner’s invocation of Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom of conscience and the right to profess, practice, and propagate religion, the court explains that this right is subject to certain limitations, particularly for reasons of public order, health, and morality. The court dismisses the petitioner’s contention that the state respondents were complicit in the removal of holy articles, as this claim remains disputed and cannot be resolved in the writ proceedings. Additionally, the court rejects the petitioner’s reliance on certain legal precedents regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to determine questions of fact. It emphasises the need for extensive evidence and oral testimony to resolve the complex issues raised in the case. Finally, the court concludes that the issues before it require extensive evidence and fall within the purview of a civil court. Therefore, it dismisses the writ petition and disposes of any pending applications, with each party bearing its own costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Shruti Gattani
