Index

Sr.No.     Description    Paragraphs

1. Introduction 01 – 02

2. Case set up by the petitioners 03 – 07

3. Claim of the respondents 08 – 10

4. Important orders passed during motion hearing 11 – 12

5. Issues raised by the petitioners 13 – 17

6. Preliminary objections pertaining to maintainability 18 - 24

of the present petition.

7. Whether it is in the domain of this Court to examine 25 - 27

the tenets of a religion ?

8. Minority rights 28

9. Whether maintaining hair unshorn is an important 29 - 128

tenet under the Sikh religion ?

--Historical background, and

Legislative enactments involving the Sikh religion 30 - 54

--The “Sikh rehat-maryada” 55- 57

--The “Sikh ardas” 58 - 60

--Views expressed by scholars of Sikhism 61 - 67

--The Guru Granth Sahib 68 - 74

--Views expressed by interveners 75 - 126

Shri Gurtej Singh 75 - 84

Shri Pavit Singh Mattewal, Advocate 85 - 98

Shri Atinder Pal Singh 99 - 107

Prof. Lal Singh 108 - 120

Giani Harinder Pal Singh 121 - 126

--Conclusion 127 – 128

10. Findings on contentions advanced on behalf of the 129 - 151

petitioners

--Whether the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 129 - 138

1925 are binding on the management and

administration of Sri Guru Ram Das Charitable

Hospital Trust, Amritsar ?

--Whether the status of the petitioners as Sikhs must 139 - 141

be determined only with reference to Section 2(9)

of the Gurdwara Act of 1925 ?

--Whether the petitioners have a right to admission 142 - 144

under the Sikh minority community quota under

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :3:

the notification dated 3.4.2001 ?

--Whether the petitioners who are all minors can be 145 - 147

made to suffer the consequence of trimming their

hair or plucking hair of their eyebrows ?

--Whether it is valid to limit admissions under the 148 - 149

Sikh minority community quota only to those who

maintain “Sikhi swarup” ?

--Whether the petitioners are entitled to admission 150 - 151

on the basis of their higher merit, in terms of the

decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Islamic

Academy of Education Vs. State of Karnataka,

JT 2003(7) SC 1?

11. Concluding remarks. 152 – 154.

J.S. Khehar, J.

1. Hearing this petition, has been an experience of sorts.

Sentiments and emotions were on a high. We were under an international

scanner. Letters were addressed to the members of the bench individually,

as well as, collectively. A lot of these letters came from overseas. Some of

the communications were addressed to the Chief Justice of this Court, and

were forwarded to us for our consideration. The media covered the hearings

from day to day, and in doing so, reported the issues canvassed, as it

perceived them. The issue under the scanner was an aspect of a

religious belief i.e. whether maintaining hair unshorn is an

essential/important tenet of the Sikh religion. Based on media projections,

individual sentimentalities were aroused. Depending on what was reported,

reaction of readers, who thronged the court, varied from day to day.

Intellectuals, Sikh scholars, and preachers of the Sikh religion, attended

court proceeding, to have a first hand account of what was going on. While

not agreeing with what one or the other side was canvassing, repeated

requests were made by those attending the proceedings, that they too should

be given an opportunity of hearing.

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :4:

2. Religion is an issue which moderates or non-believers do not

understand fully. Although, I am proud to be born in a Sikh family, I must

confess my ignorance to the finer ramifications of the Sikh religion. For

one of us, it was a first-time experience into the customs and usages of the

Sikh religion. In order to ensure that we had been sufficiently informed

about the issue being canvassed, we breached the unwritten norms. We read

all the mail received by us, hoping to know and learn more about the

controversy. We also heard those who regularly attended hearings of the

case, and were emphatic that they had a point of view which should be

taken into consideration. The analysis of the controversy at our hands may

not be an amalgam of the thoughts projected, but all that was read and

heard, must most necessarily have influenced our thoughts. We have,

therefore, recorded all the submissions made during the course of hearing.

We have recorded our reasons for not taking into consideration some of the

submissions made during the course of hearing. We have not incorporated

in our order/judgement the names of individuals whom we allowed a

hearing, except those who moved express applications and were allowed to

intervene. Some of those heard by us entertained diagonally opposite

views, from what others had to say. We have tried to reproduce the views

of those who appeared before us exactly as we understood them. But then

religion is a sensitive issue, a word here and there, may make all the

difference. We hope that those whose views have been extracted herein,

will find them to their satisfaction. We also wish to place on record our

appreciation of the assistance rendered to us, by all the learned counsel, as

also, the participation and interest shown by the interveners and others. Our

gratitude for the effort put in by Mr. Anupam Gupta, Senior Standing

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :5:

Counsel for the U.T., Chandigarh, however, needs a special mention. He

must have had to first understand the tenets of the Sikh religion, and then, to

painstakingly convey them to us; despite the fact that he did not represent

either of the contesting parties, and has nothing to do with the Sikh religion.

He undoubtedly made our enormous task easier, than what it otherwise

would have been.

3. The petitioners in the instant writ petition claim admission to

the MBBS course at the Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences

and Research, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as the Medical College).

The petitioners had applied for admission to the said course for the

academic session 2008-09. It would be pertinent to mention, that a

prospectus-cum-application form was issued by the Association of Unaided

Sikh Minority Medical and Dental Institutions, Amritsar, for filling up,

inter-alia, 100 seats of the MBBS course, at the Medical College. Out of the

aforesaid 100 seats, 50% i.e. 50 seats were reserved for candidates

belonging to the Sikh minority community. The prospectus also contained a

“notice” relevant for admissions to the seats reserved for the Sikh minority

community. Candidates were informed through the “notice”, that the

process of admission for the reserved seats would be in terms of the orders

passed by the Supreme Court in TMA Pai’s case. And also that, directions

issued by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy's case, as well as, P.A.

Inamdar’s case (dated 31.10.2002 and 12.8.2005), would be followed. It

was also sought to be clarified, that future orders issued by the Supreme

Court, in respect of admissions to the course under reference, would also be

binding on all the parties.

4. In so far as, eligibility for the seats reserved for the Sikh

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :6:

minority community is concerned, the same was delineated in Part-B of the

prospectus. Since the eligibility of the petitioners, under the Sikh minority

community quota is the primary issue, arising for adjudication in the instant

writ petition, the eligibility criterion depicted in the prospectus is being

extracted hereunder: -

“Eligibility and qualification to appear in the entrance test.

The test will be open to a candidate who-

(i) is resident of India and belongs to Sikh Community;

(ii) has completed, or shall be completing, by 31.12.2008 the

age of 17 years;

(iii) has passed in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Biology

and English individually and has obtained a minimum of 50%

marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry & Biology at

Senior Secondary Part II Examination(class 12 of 10+2 stream),

or an equivalent examination from the recognized statutory

Board/ University. (The candidate should have passed this

examination in the annual examination held in March/April

2008 or earlier. Those who are placed in compartment in the

annual examination 2008 or who are already in compartment

and fail to clear the same in the annual examination 2008 shall

not be eligible).

Notes:

Community if he practices the Sikh faith, and maintains Sikh

appearance, i.e. he/she does not cut or trim hair and wears

turban(in case of male candidates) and has the word

“Singh/Kaur” with his/her name, has faith in the Ten Sikh

Gurus and Sri Guru Granth Sahib only, and does not owe

allegiance to any other sect or religion.

(2) A male Sikh candidate who does not presently bear the

suffix “Singh” and a female Sikh candidate the word “Kaur”

with his/her name, may get it added legally(that is through an

affidavit plus notice in a newspaper regarding change of name)

before submission of his/her application by the last date.

(3) Such a candidate can also appear in the Entrance

Examination who has appeared in the qualifying examination in

the annual examination held in March/April 2008, but his result

is awaited. However, his candidature will be considered only if

he passes the qualifying examination in the subjects of Physics,

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :7:

Chemistry, Biology and English individually and obtains a

minimum of 50% marks taken together in Physics, Chemistry &

Biology as mentioned in clause(iii) above, before the date of

first counselling.”

Note (1) extracted hereinabove, is pointedly the subject matter of

consideration in the present case.

5. It would be pertinent to mention, that all the petitioners while

applying for admission to the MBBS course, under the Sikh minority

community quota, submitted their photographs and filed affidavits in the

prescribed format. The prescribed format of the affidavit for male and

female candidates (enclosed with the prospectus as Appendix D1 and D2,

respectively) are being extracted hereunder: -

“AFFIDAVIT

(For male candidates).

I___________________, son of

____________________________ resident of

__________________________________________________

_____, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:

(1) That I am Sikh and belong to the Sikh Community.

(2) That I pratice the Sikh Faith;

(3) That I maintain Sikh appearance and do not cut or trim my

hair;

(4) That I have the word “Singh” affixed to my name;

(5) That I have faith only in the Ten Sikh Gurus and Sri Guru

Granth Sahib;

(6) That I do not owe allegiance to any other sect or religion.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent, further affirm and declare that

the above averment by me is true and correct and that nothing

has been concealed by me.

DEPONENT

AFFIDAVIT

(For female candidates)

I __________________________, daughter of

__________________________ resident of

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :8:

______________________________________, do hereby

solemnly affirm and state as under:

(1) That I am Sikh and belong to the Sikh Community;

(2) That I practice the Sikh Faith;

(3) That I maintain Sikh appearance and do not cut or trim my

hair, including hair on my eyebrows;

(4) That I have the word “Kaur” affixed to my name;

(5) That I have faith only in the Ten Sikh Gurus and Sri Guru

Granth Sahib;

(6) That I do not owe allegiance to any other sect or religion.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the above named deponent, further affirm and declare that the

above averment by me is true and correct and that nothing has

been concealed by me.

DEPONENT”

The pleadings of the instant writ petition also reveal, that all the petitioners

were born in Sikh families. All the petitioners claim that they satisfy all the

norms stipulated in the affidavit, and accordingly assert, that they fulfil the

conditions of eligibility prescribed for the Sikh minority community.

6. Having passed the 10+2 examination with Physics, Chemistry

and Biology, the petitioners asserted their eligibility to participate in the

entrance test conducted by the Medical College. They were permitted to

take the entrance test. Having taken the test conducted on 18.7.2008, the

result whereof was declared on the same day (i.e. 18.7.2008 itself), the

petitioners claim their absolute right for admission, to the seats under the

Sikh minority community quota, on the basis of their position in the merit

list. The inter-se merit of the petitioners viz. those who have been allowed

admission, has been placed on the record of this case as Annexure P-3. The

Medical College has granted admission to a candidate placed at merit rank

No.67 in the entrance test, whereas the position of the petitioners in the

merit list is at serial Nos.7, 9, 40, 40 (petitioners No.3 and 4 were clubbed

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :9:

at merit rank No.40) and 49, respectively.

7. The petitioners have impleaded as respondents, all those who

have been admitted to the MBBS course under the Sikh minority

community quota, but were below the merit position of one or the other of

the petitioners, as they would be adversely affected, in case of success of the

present writ petition. The claim of the petitioners superiority, within the

Sikh minority quota, over the private respondents, is based on the decision

rendered by the Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education Vs. State

of Karnataka, JT 2003(7) SC 1, wherein the Apex Court declared the legal

position on the subject under reference in the following words : -

“It must be clarified that a minority professional college can

admit, in their management quota, a student of their own

community/language in preference to a student of another

community even though that other student is more meritorious.

However, whilst selecting/admitting students of their

community/language the inter-se merit of those students

cannot be ignored. In other words whilst selecting/admitting

students of their own community/language they cannot ignore

the inter-se merit amongst students of their

community/language. Admission, even of members of their

community/language, must strictly be on the basis of merit

except that in case of their own students it has to be merit interse

those students only. Further if the seats cannot be filled up

from members of their community/language, then the other

students can be admitted only on the basis of merit based on a

common entrance test conducted by government agencies.”

8. The claim of the petitioners is vehemently opposed by the

Medical College. In the written statement filed on behalf of the Medical

College, it is asserted, that while applying for admission to the MBBS

course the petitioners had submitted affidavits, that they do not cut or trim

their hair. In addition to the aforesaid, it is alleged that in the affidavit filed

by female candidates, it was asserted that they do not pluck hair from their

eyebrows. The veracity of the aforesaid affidavits, was considered at the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :10:

time of counseling on 25.7.2008. The affidavits filed by the petitioners

were found to be false. The counseling committee which arrived at the

conclusion that the affidavits filed by the petitioners were false, was

comprised of senior and responsible members. It was headed by Shri Avtar

Singh Makkar, President of the SGPC and Chairman of the Sri Guru Ram

Das Charitable Hospital Trust, Amritsar. The counseling committee,

amongst others, also comprised of the Principal of the Sri Guru Ram Das

Institute of Medical Science and Research, Amritsar, as well as, the

Principal of the Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Dental Sciences and

Research, Amritsar. The counseling committee was assisted by male and

female doctors. The responsibility assigned to the doctors associated with

the counseling committee was, to determine whether students seeking

admission under the Sikh minority community quota, were eligible for the

same. We were informed that the responsibility of the doctors associated

with the counseling committee was to determine whether the candidates in

the merit list had maintained “Sikhi swarup” (Sikh appearance). Only such

candidates, who had maintained their hair unshorn, were to be accepted as

having maintained “Sikhi swarup”.

9. The doctors who examined the petitioners at the time of

counseling, arrived at the conclusion that they were indulging in trimming

their hair in case of male students, and plucking hair of their eyebrows in

case of female students. They were, therefore, declared ineligible. It is

expressly asserted in the written statement filed by the Medical College, that

the entire process of counseling and checking was videographed (for the

sake of transparency). During the course of hearing, learned counsel

representing the Medical College, offered to make the said videographs

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :11:

available to this Court, in case of any ambiguity/doubt, about the factual

assertions (on the issue of trimming of hair/plucking hair of eyebrows). It

would, however, be pertinent to mention, that learned counsel representing

the petitioners did not contest the veracity of the factual position noticed in

the written statement filed on behalf of the Medical College. As such, there

was no occasion for us to doubt the correctness of the factual position

relating to trimming of hair/plucking hair of eyebrows, by the petitioners.

We therefore, did not require the Medical College to present the videoclippings.

10. It is the contention of the Medical College, that the petitioners

were not eligible to be considered under the Sikh minority community quota

as they had not maintained “Sikhi swarup”, and were accordingly denied

admission under the said quota. It is also asserted on behalf of the Medical

College, that the affidavits filed by the petitioners in the prescribed format

(extracted hereinabove), were false, and as such, could not be accepted as a

valid/genuine basis for their admission to the MBBS course.

11. When the instant writ petition came up for hearing for the first

time on 29.7.2008, a Division Bench of this court passed the following

order: -

“The petitioners applied for admission to the MBBS course in

the State of Punjab for the Session 2008-09. The petitioners

applied in the Sikh Minority quota. They have been denied

admission on the ground that they have trimmed their beard or

plucked their eye-brows. Learned counsel submits that the

quota fixed is for the members of Sikh community and it does

not make any distinction whether a student belongs to

Amritdhari, Sahajdhari, Keshadhari or any other category of

Sikhs. It is contended that all the petitioners are from Sikh

community, therefore, they had to be considered in the 50%

quota in the order of merit as laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Islamic Academy of Education vs. State of

Karnataka and others, reported as JT 2003 (7) SC 1, wherein it

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :12:

has been held that even in the minority quota, admissions have

to be made strictly in accordance with the merit.

Notice of motion for 11.8.2008.

Process dasti.

The questions regarding the grant of any interim order

shall be considered on the next date of hearing.”

12. During the course of motion hearing, by an order dated

4.9.2008, this Court permitted the petitioners to implead the State of

Haryana, the State of Himachal Pradesh, the Union of India and the Union

Territory of Chandigarh, as party respondents. On 10.9.2008, while

admitting the writ petition for regular hearing, this court at the suggestion of

the learned counsel representing the petitioners, formulated seven questions

of law, which according to the petitioners, required determination at the

hands of this court. This Court also permitted the learned counsel

representing the respondents to suggest additional questions, which may

require determination during the course of the adjudication of the instant

writ petition. The seven questions of law framed at the behest of the learned

counsel for the petitioners (in the order passed by the Division Bench on

10.9.2008) are being extracted hereunder: -

“i) Whether the S.G.P.C. is a statutory Board in terms of

section 40 of the Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925 ?

ii) Whether a person who trims, shaves, plucks etc. or

otherwise removes or reduces/shortens his/her bodily hair is not

a Sikh ?

iii) Whether a person who does not include a word 'Singh' (in

case of male) and 'Kaur' (in case of female) in his/her name is

not a Sikh?

iv) Whether all Amritdhari Sikhs, Sehajdhari Sikhs,

Keshadhari Sikhs and Patits are within the larger definition of

Sikh as contained in section 2 (9) of Sikh Gurudwara Act,

1925, if not, whether the division of Sikhs into Amritdhari

Sikhs, Sehajdhari Sikhs, Keshadhari Sikhs and Patits in section

2(10), 2(10A) 2(11) respectively of the Sikh Gurudwara Act,

1925 is ultra vires the provisions of section 2(9) of the said

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :13:

Act? and whether the classification of Sikhs in 4 categories is a

valid classification?

v) Whether reservation of 50 percent seats of Sikh minority

quota is available for institutions run by S.G.P.C. only in terms

of Government Notification (Annexure P-5)?

vi) Whether the petitioners who are higher in merit than the

private respondents can be denied admission on the ground that

they cut their hair, trim their beard and remove facial and/or

other hair and whether clause 3 note (1), clause 9 and

Appendix D-1 and D-2 of the prospectus are illegal and ultra

vires the provisions of the The Sikh Gurudwara Act, 1925?

vii) Can a minor student be refused admission if he/she trims,

shaves, plucks etc. or otherwise removes or reduces/shortens

his/her bodily hair ?”

13. The first submission raised on behalf of the petitioners, can be

summarised as follows. Firstly, according to the petitioners, the Shiromani

Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as the SGPC) is a

Board created under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to

as the Gurdwara Act of 1925). The SGPC, in terms of the mandate of

section 42 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, is a body corporate, having

perpetual succession and a common seal. The aforestated provision also

mandates, that the SGPC can be sued in its name, and likewise, it can sue

others. Under section 106 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, the funds

collected from “Sikh gurdwaras” can be used by the SGPC, inter-alia, for

educational purposes. Secondly, it has been urged by the learned counsel

for the petitioners, that the SGPC has set up, and is running the respondent –

Medical College, out of the aforesaid funds. It is also pointed out, that the

management and control of the respondent – Medical College is also in the

hands of the SGPC. On the basis of the cumulative effect of the first and

the second submissions noticed hereinabove, it is sought to be asserted, that

the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925 are binding on the respondent –

Medical College. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :14:

fact whether or not the petitioners are Sikhs, will have to be determined on

the basis of the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. Accordingly it is

submitted, that the petitioners cannot be declared ineligible for admission

against the seats reserved for the Sikh minority community, either by the

SGPC or by the respondent – Medical College, in violation of the

provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. In this behalf, it would also be

pertinent to mention, that it is the case of the petitioners, that Note I under

the conditions of eligibility and qualifications laid down in the prospectus,

for candidates belonging to the Sikh minority community, is in clear

violation of the mandate of the definition of the term “Sikh”, under section 2

(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. In this behalf, it is pointed out that, all the

petitioners must be deemed to profess the Sikh religion in the light of the

provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. It is also pointed out, that all the

petitioners had filed affidavits alongwith their application forms, in the

format extracted hereinabove, affirming that they were Sikhs. It is asserted

that all the petitioners believed only in the ten “Sikh gurus” and in the Guru

Granth Sahib. It is also asserted by the petitioners, that none of them owe

allegiance to any other faith, sect or religion. As such, all the petitioners

must be deemed to be Sikhs. All the petitioners also assert that they

maintain the “Sikhi swarup”. It is, therefore, the case of the petitioners that

the action of the respondent – Medical College in not allowing the

petitioners admission to the MBBS course, under the Sikh minority

community quota, despite their higher merit, is unsustainable in law.

14. It is also the case of the petitioners, that the Gurdwara Act of

1925 was amended by the British government in 1944, whereby sections 2

(10), 2(10-A) and 2(11) were added. In this behalf, it is pointed out that

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :15:

from historical facts, it can be established that the British during the course

of their rule in India, followed the principle of divide and rule. It is pointed

out that the provisions introduced in the Gurdwara Act of 1925 in the year

1944, were aimed at creating a division between the Hindus and Sikhs. The

said political philosophy was again brought into play by the British,

according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, to divide Sikhs, by

classifying them as “amritdhari Sikhs”, “sehijdhari Sikhs” and “patits”. It is

pointed out that “amritdhari Sikhs”, “sehijdhari Sikhs” and “patits” are

different strains of Sikhs. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioners, all the aforesaid strains of Sikhs, fall within the definition of the

term “Sikh” under section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. It is

reiterated, that it is not open to the authorities to limit admissions to an

educational institution, to one or more categories of Sikhs, defined under

the Gurdwara Act of 1925. It is submitted that the petitioners are Sikhs

within the meaning of section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, and as

such, are liable to be considered for admission to the MBBS course at the

Medical College under the Sikh minority community quota. It has also been

asserted at the hands of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that subsection

(10-A) of section 2 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925 cannot be

harmoniously read with sub-section (9) of section 2 of the Gurdwara Act of

1925. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, a harmonious

construction of the aforesaid two sub-sections of section 2 aforesaid, is only

possible, if clause (iii) of sub-section (10-A) of section 2 aforesaid (“(iii)

who is not a patit”), is deleted therefrom. It is pointed out, that even if the

petitioners are considered to be “patits” under section 2(11) of the Gurdwara

Act of 1925, they should still be treated as Sikhs, and as such, their

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :16:

eligibility under the Sikh minority community quota should not be

questioned.

15. It is also claimed by the petitioners, that the respondent –

Medical College was declared as a Sikh minority institute, by a notification

dated 3.4.2001. The aforesaid notification is being extracted hereunder: -

“No. 18/33/2001-GC(6)/4513 dated Chandigarh the 3rd April,

2001.

Whereas in terms of the provisions of the Constitution of India,

the Sikhs are a minority community in the country.

And whereas the Governor of Punjab is of the opinion that the

Sikhs Educational Institutions ought to be treated as Minority

Educational Institutions.

Now, therefore, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to declare

that the Sikhs Educational Institutions run by the Sikhs

Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar can reserve upto

fifty percent seats exclusively for the members of the Sikhs

community and for furtherance of the interest of the Sikhs

community, the aforesaid committee may make reservation

within the seats, so reserved.”

Relying on the notification extracted hereinabove, it is submitted on behalf

of the petitioners, that while declaring the respondent – Medical College as

a minority educational institute, the notification provided for reservation

upto 50% of the seats exclusively for the members of the Sikh minority

community. As such, it is submitted at the behest of the petitioners, that it is

not open to the respondents to curtail the meaning of the term “Sikh”

beyond the one envisaged under the notification dated 3.4.2001, so as to

exclude some categories of Sikhs, and to allow admission to a minuscule

section of the Sikh community i.e. to “keshadhari Sikhs” (i.e. Sikhs who

retain their hair unshorn) alone.

16. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners, that the petitioners are minors. Accordingly, even if they cut

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :17:

their hair, trim their beard or pluck the hair of their eyebrows, their acts of

alleged indiscretion cannot be held against them, so as to deny them

admission, for one or more of the aforestated faults. In this behalf, it is

pointed out that all the petitioners were born in Sikh families, follow the

Sikh faith and tradition, and do not owe allegiance to any other faith or

religion, and as such, cannot be deprived of the benefit of admission under

the Sikh minority community quota. On the same reasoning, learned

counsel for the petitioners contended, that the purpose of reservation for a

religious minority community is to take the specific minority community

progressively forward, so that persons following the religious faith find a

better place for themselves in society. According to the petitioners, the

instant action at the hands of the Medical College limiting seats reserved

under the Sikh minority community quota, only for those who maintain their

hair unshorn (i.e. who do not trim their hair or do not pluck hair of their

eyebrows) would be a retrograde step, and as such, would be against the

interest of the minority community itself. Norms which are derogatory to

the interest of the majority community, cannot be permitted to be

implemented, and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the

petitioners, this Court should direct the Medical College to overlook norms

of the nature referred to hereinabove. It is submitted that while regulating

admissions, to the Medical College under the Sikh minority community

quota, those who are more meritorious, rather than those who are less

meritorious, should be preferred.

17. Before dealing with the issues pointedly raised at the behest of

the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is imperative for us to answer

certain objections in respect of the maintainability of the claim raised at the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :18:

hands of the petitioners. We will, accordingly, deal with the aforesaid

issues in the first instance before embarking upon the determination of the

claim of the petitioners, on merits.

Preliminary Objections raised on the issue of maintainability of the present

petition.

18. In the letters we received, we were emphatically warned, that

courts had no business to pronounce on beliefs and tenets of the Sikh

religion. We were told, that the issue in hand, namely, whether wearing hair

unshorn was an essential component of the Sikh religion, was not for us to

decide. We were informed that the issue had been decided at the hands of

those vested with the said responsibility under the faith, and thereafter,

incorporated in the prospectus issued by the Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of

Medical Sciences and Research. We were informed that the Medical

College was a Sikh minority institute, and as such, enjoyed a special status

under the Constitution of India. In a letter received by us, the tone and tenor

was almost bordering on a threat. We were advised that no human

institution can define the Sikh religion, and as such, even an attempt should

not be ventured in that direction. The letter went on to assert that

committees and boards constituted to administer “Sikh gurdwaras” also had

no right to define “Sikhism”. According to the wisdom of the author of the

letter, legislative bodies and courts of law, also cannot be permitted to

define the Sikh religion. We were informed that the Medical College was

an un-aided educational institute, and as such, its decisions on the issue of

admission, including regulation of admissions to students belonging to the

Sikh minority community, could not be interfered with. In the first instance,

therefore, we shall endeavour to consider whether or not, it is open for a

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :19:

Court to examine aspects of religion. If the answer to the aforesaid question

is in the affirmative, we shall then consider, whether or not, a Court can

decide what aspects of a particular religion, constitute essentials of that

religion, and what do not. We shall then deal with the issue, whether or

not, a Court can examine the validity of the parameters laid down by a

minority un-aided institute for regulating admissions to the minority

community itself. These and others allied issues are necessarily of prime

consideration, before we venture to adjudicate upon the merits of the issues

raised on behalf of the petitioners.

19. We will first embark on the issue whether it is open to a Court

to enter into the arena of “religion” and to decipher the essentials thereof.

The word “religion” was attempted to be defined by the Supreme Court in

wherein the Supreme Court observed as under: -

“What then are matters of religion ? The word "religion " has

not been defined in the Constitution and it is a term which is

hardly susceptible of any rigid definition. In an American case

'Vide Davis V. Beason, (1888) US 333 at p.342(G), it has

been said:

"that the term religion has reference to one's views of his

relation to his Creator and to the obligations they impose

of reverence for His Being and character and of

obedience to His will. It is often confounded with cultus

of form or worship of a particular sect, but is

distinguishable from the latter."

We do not think that the above definition can be regarded as

either precise or adequate. Articles 25 and 26 of our

Constitution are based for the most part upon Article 44(2) of

the Constitution of India and we have great doubt whether a

definition of "religion" as given above could have been in the

minds of our Constitution-makers when they framed the

Constitution.

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :20:

Religion is certainly a matter of faith with individuals or

communities and it is not necessarily theistic. There are well

known religions in India like Buddhism and Jainism which do

not believe in God or in any Intelligent First Cause. A religion

undoubtedly has its basis in a system of beliefs or doctrines

which are regarded by those who profess that religion as

conducive to their spiritual well being, but it would not be

correct to say that religion is nothing else, but a doctrine or

belief. A religion may not only lay down a code of ethical rules

for its followers to accept, it might prescribe rituals and

observances, ceremonies and modes of worship which are

regarded as integral parts of religion, and these forms and

observances might extend even to matters of food and dress.”

Another attempt by the Supreme Court to define the word “religion” was

was observed as under: -

“Quite a considerable part of the hearing of the petitions was

devoted to a debate on the question, what is Religion?

Religion: Everyone has a religion, or at least, a view or a

window on religion, be he a bigot or simple believer,

philosopher or pedestrian, atheist or agnostic. Religion, like

'democracy' and 'equality' is an elusive expression, which

everyone understands according to his pre-conceptions. What

is religion to some is pure dogma to others and what is religion

to others is pure superstition to some others. Karl Marx in his

contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Law

described religion as the 'Opium of the people'. He said further

"Basically religion is a very convenient sanctuary for

bourgeois thought to flee to in times of stress. Bertrand

Russell, in his essay 'Why I am not Christian', said, "Religion

is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear." It is partly

the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to

feel that you have a kind of elder brother, who will stand by

you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the

whole thing-fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death.

Fear is the parent of cruelty, and, therefore, it is no wonder if

cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. As a worshipper

at the alter of peace, I find it difficult to reconcile myself to

religion, which throughout the ages, has justified war calling it

a Dharma Uddha, a Jehad or a Crusade. I believe that by

getting mixed up with religion, ethics has lost 'much of its

point, much of its purpose and a major portion of its

spontaneity'. I apprehend I share the views of those who have

neither faith nor belief in religion and who consider religion as

entirely unscientific and irrational. Chanting of prayer appears

to me to be mere jingoism and observance of ritual, plain

superstition. But my views about religion. my prejudices and

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :21:

my predilections, if they be such, are entirely irrelevant. So are

the views of the credulous, the fanatic, the bigot and the zealot.

So also the views of the faithful, the devout, the Acharya, the

Moulvi, the Padre and the Bhikshu each of whom may claim

his as the only true or revealed religion…”

“Etymology is of no avail. Religion is derived from 'religare'

which means "to bind". Etymologically, therefore, every bond

between two people is a religion, but that is not true. To say so

is only to indulge in etymological deception. Quite obviously,

religion is much more than a mere bond uniting people.

Quite obviously, again, religion is not to be confined to the

traditional, established, well-known or popular religions like

Hinduism, Mahomedanism, Buddhism and Christianity. There

may be and, indeed, there are, in this vast country, several

religions, less known or even unknown except in the remote

corners or in the small pockets of the land where they may be

practiced. A religion may not be wide-spread. It may have little

following. It may not have even a name, as indeed most tribal

religions do not have. We may only describe them by adding

the suffix 'ism' to the name of the founder-teacher, the tribe,

the area or the deity. The nomenclature is not of the essence.

Again, a band of persons, large or small, may not be said to be

adherents of a religion merely because they share some

common beliefs and common interests and practice common

rites and ceremonies; nor can pietistic recitation and solemn

ritual combine to produce religion, on that account only. Secret

societies dedicated to secular tasks and indulging in queer

oaths and observances, guilds and groups of persons who meet

but to dine and wine but who subject their members to

extravagant initiation ceremonies, village and tribal sorcerers

and coven of witches who chant rant and dance in the most

weird way possible are all far removed from religion. They

appear to lack the 'spiritual connection'. But, all this is

unsatisfactory. We are not arriving at any definition of

religion. We are only making peripheral journeys and not

getting any nearer to the core of the problem presented to us.”

“It is obvious that religion, undefined by the Constitution, is

incapable of precise judicial definition either. In the

background of the provisions of the Constitution and the light

shed by judicial precedent, we may say religion is a matter of

faith. It is a matter of belief and doctrine. It concerns the

conscience i.e. the spirit of man. It must be capable of overt

expression in word and deed, such as, worship or ritual. So,

religion is a matter of belief and doctrine, concerning the

human spirit, expressed overtly in the form of ritual and

worship. Some religions are easily identifiable as religions,

some are easily identifiable as not religions. There are many in

the penumbral region which instinctively appear to some as

religion and to others as not religions. There is no formula of

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :22:

general application. There is no knife-edge test. Primarily, it is

a question of the consciousness of the community, how does

the fraternity or sodality (if it is permissible to use the word

without confining it to Roman Catholic groups) regard itself,

how do others regard the fraternity or sodality. A host of other

circumstances may have to be considered, such as, the origin

and the history of the community, the beliefs and the doctrines

professed by the community, the rituals observed by the

community, what the founder, if any, taught, what the founder

was understood by his followers to have taught, etc. In origin,

the founder may not have intended to found any religion at all.

He may have merely protested against some rituals and

observances; he may have disagreed with the interpretation of

some earlier religious tenets. What he said, what he preached

and what he taught, his protest, his dissent, his disagreement

might have developed into a religion in the course of time,

even during his life-time. He may be against religion itself, yet,

history and the perception of the community may make a

religion out of what was not intended to be a religion and he

may be hailed as the founder of a new religion. There are the

obvious examples of Buddhism and Jainism and for that matter

Christianity itself. Neither Buddha nor Mahavira, nor Christ

ever thought of founding a new religion, yet three great

religions bear their names.”

With the aforestated outline of the meaning of the word “religion”, Justice

O. Chinnappa Reddy, while recording the minority view, concluded that

Shri Aurobindo had founded a new religious denomination, and that,

religious leaders all over the world, and of all faiths, also accepted the said

position. The majority view in the aforesaid case was recorded by Justice

R.B. Misra. The majority defined the word “religion” as under: -

“The word 'religion' has not been defined in the Constitution

and indeed it is a term which is hardly susceptible of any rigid

definition. In reply to a question on Dharma by Yaksha,

Dharmaraja Yudhisthira said thus:

tarko pratisth,srutyo vibhinna

neko risiyasya matan pramanam

dharmaya tatwan nihitan guhayan

mahajano jein gatah sa pantha

Mahabharta-Aranyakaparvan 313.117.

(Formal logic is vascillating. Srutis are contradictory. There is

no single rishi whose opinion is final. The principle of Dharma

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :23:

is hidden in a cave. The path of the virtuous persons is the only

proper course.).

The expression 'Religion' has, however, been sought to be

defined in the 'Words and Phrases', Permanent Edn., 36 A, p.

461 onwards, as given below:

“Religion is morality, with a sanction drawn from a

future state of rewards and punishments.”

The term 'religion' and 'religious' in ordinary usage are not rigid

concepts.

'Religion' has reference to one's views of his relations to his

Creator and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his

being and character, and of obedience to his will.

The word 'religion' in the primary sense (from 'religare, to

rebind-bind back), imports, as applied to moral questions, only

a recognition of a conscious duty to obey restraining principles

of conduct. To such sense we suppose there is no one who will

admit that he is without religion.

'Religion' is bond uniting man to God, and virtue whose

purpose is to render God worship due him as source of all being

and principle of all government of things.

'Religion' has reference to man's relation to divinity; to the

moral obligation of reverence and worship, obedience and

submission, It is the recognition of God as as object of worship,

love and obedience; right feeling toward God, as highly

apprehended.

'Religion' means the services and adoration of God or a god as

expressed in forms of worship; an apprehension, awareness, or

conviction of the existence of a Supreme Being; any system of

faith, doctrine and worship, as the Christian religion, the

religions of the orient; a particular system of faith or worship.

The term 'religion' as used in tax exemption law, simply

includes: (I) a belief, not necessarily referring to supernatural

powers; (2) a cult, involving a gregarious association openly

expressing the belief; (3) a system of moral practice directly

resulting from an adherence to the belief; and (4) an

organization within the cult designed to observe the tenets or

belief, the content of such belief being of no moment.

While 'religion' in its broadest sense includes all forms of belief

in the existence of superior beings capable of exercising power

over the human race, as commonly accepted it means the formal

recognition of God, as members of societies and associations,

and the term, "a religious purpose', as used in the constitutional

provision exempting from taxation property used for religious

purposes, means the use of property by a religious society or

body of persons as a place for public worship.

'Religion' is squaring human life with superhuman life. Belief

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :24:

in a superhuman power and such an adjustment of human

activities to the requirements of that power as may enable the

individual believer to exist more happily is common to all

'religions'. The term 'religion' has reference to one's views on

his relations to his creator, and to the obligations they impose

of reverence for his being and character and obedience to his

will.

The term 'religion' has reference to one's views of his relations

to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence

for his being and character, and of obedience to his will. With

man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think

they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be

made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can

be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to

secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people,

are not interfered with."

These terms have also been judicially considered in The

Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri

Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt(1954) SCR

1005: (AIR 1954 SC 282) where in the following proposition

of law have been laid down:

(1) Religion means "a system of beliefs or doctrines which are

regarded by those who profess that religion as conducive to

their spiritual well-being".

(2) A religion is not merely an opinion, doctrine or belief. It

has its outward expression in acts as well.

(3) Religion need not be theistic.

(4) "Religious denomination" means a religious sect or body

having a common faith and organisation and designated by a

distinctive name.

(5) A law which takes away the rights of administration from

the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests in

another authority would amount to violation of the right

guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 26."

On the basis of the detailed examination of the philosophical preachings of

Shri Aurobindo, and the definition of the word “religion”, the majority

concluded that Shri Aurobindo had not founded a new religion.

20. A detailed analysis of the practices followed by Aurobindoites

was a perquisite for the Apex Court in S.P. Mittal’s case (supra) to arrive at

a conclusion, one way or the other, whether Shri Aurobindo had founded a

“religion” wherein the practice under consideration were an essential

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :25:

component. A similar detailed examination is required to determine the

mandatory or directory nature of a practice, in every such case, where a

controversy as the one under consideration in the present case, arises for

consideration. Stated simply, in case of a conflict, a Court must enter the

religious thicket to determine the do’s and the don'ts of a religion. Views of

spokespersons of the religion involved would have to be examined to

determine the matter, in case the tenets thereof are not codified. And in

case, the religion in question has a writing text, then text thereof is the best

resource, for such a determination. But then “religion” cannot be

perceived on parameters, like science and logic. The choice of something

which is forward-looking or non-fundamentalist, may certainly not be right,

but in so far as norms of a religion are concerned, the issue is not of logic

but of faith. The acceptance of an egalitarian approach, would spell disaster

to the “religion” in question. Looking for an approach which would make a

religion more acceptable to the present social order, or the presently

acceptable humanistic approach, is what those professing a religion would

like to resist. Religion has to be perceived, not as liberals and as others

think of it, but as it is, without any change or modifications.

21. Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties over a few

days, we have been led to believe that every “religion” is based on myths,

ethos, legend and traditions supported by beliefs and fables. A religion is

the characteristic spirit of a community of people with a common goal.

Every religion without exception has beliefs and practices, which its

followers accept without any challenge, even though they may seem to be

outrageous to those belonging to another religion (whether on the

touchstone of a scientific study, or on that of logic). All these aspects

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :26:

(myths, ethos, legends, beliefs, fables etc.) of religion when clubbed

together constitute a religious consciousness. Irrespective of the logical

acceptability of some of these characteristics, no religion allows its

consciousness to be invaded or questioned. Undoubtedly, religious

consciousness is a cherished philosophy binding the believers into a defined

religion. This religious consciousness wraps up the followers of a faith into

a separate social entity. An entity, which does not accept interference or

tinkering. The followers of the faith do not allow their beliefs to be

questioned. Religion must, therefore, be perceived as it is, and not as

another would like it to be. It is this spirit of religious consciousness that is

sought to be protected by various provisions of the Constitution of India.

22. The significance of protection extended to religious

consciousness under the provisions of the Constitution of India, is apparent

from the fact that the provisions relating thereto are contained in Part III of

the Constitution of India, which delineates the fundamental rights extended

to all persons (in some cases, limited to citizens alone) in their relationship

with the State. Reference may be made to Articles 25 to 28 under the

heading “Right to Freedom of Religion”, and Articles 29 and 30 under the

heading “Cultural and Educational Rights”.

23. Insofar as, the present controversy is concerned, it will be

necessary only to refer to Articles 25, 26 and 30 of the Constitution of

India. Article 25 of the Constitution of India, as its language suggests,

secures to every person the right to freely profess, practice and propagate

“religion”. In, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments’ case

(supra), the scope of Article 25 was explained as under in paragraph 14: -

“14. We now come to Article 25 which, as its language

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :27:

indicates, secures to every person, subject to public order,

health and morality, a freedom not only to entertain such

religious belief, as may be approved of by his judgment and

conscience, but also to exhibit his belief in such outward acts as

he thinks proper and to propagate or disseminate his ideas for

the edification of others….”

In paragraph 18 of the same judgement, the Court further noticed as under:--

“18. The guarantee under our Constitution not only protects the

freedom of religious opinion but it protects also acts done in

pursuance of a religion and this is made clear by the use of the

expression " practice of religion " in Article 25.....

Restrictions by the State upon free exercise of religion are

permitted both under Articles 25 and 26 on grounds of public

order, morality and health. Clause (2)(a) of Article 25 reserves

the right of the State to regulate or restrict any economic,

financial, political and other secular activities which may be

associated with religious practice and there is a further right

given to the State by sub-clause (b) under which the State can

legislate for social welfare and reform even though by so

doing it might interfere with religious practices...”

Article 26 of the Constitution of India allows every religious denomination

to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes.

The provision also allows a religious denomination to manage its own

affairs in “matters of religion”. Liberty is also extended to religious

denominations to own and acquire immovable property, as also, to

administer such property. In, the Commissioner, Hindu Religious

Endowments’ case (supra), the Supreme Court distinguished the scope and

effect of the right guaranteed for administering property of a religious

denomination, from the right to manage “matters of religion” in the

following manner: -

“The other thing that remains to be considered in regard to

Article 26 is, what is the scope of clause (b) of the Article

which speaks of management " of its own affairs in matters of

religion ?" The language undoubtedly suggests that there could

be other affairs of a religious denomination or a section thereof

which are not matters of religion and to which the guarantee

given by this clause would not apply. The question is, whereas

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :28:

the line to be drawn between what are matters of religion and

what are not?

It will be seen that besides the right to manage its own affairs in

matters of religion, which is given by clause (b), the next two

clauses of Article 26 guarantee to a religious denomination the

right to acquire and own property and to administer such

property in accordance with law. The administration of its

property by a religious denomination has thus been placed on a

different footing from the right to manage its own affairs in

matters of religion. The latter is a fundamental right which no

legislature can take away, whereas the former can be regulated

by laws which the legislature can validly impose. It is clear,

therefore, that questions merely relating to administration of

properties belonging to a religious group or institution are not

matters of religion to which clause (b) of the Article applies…”

24. What constitutes “matters of religion” can also be determined

from the following observations recorded in the aforesaid pronouncement: -

“…In the first place, what constitutes the essential part of a

religion is primarily to be ascertained with reference to the

doctrines of that religion itself. If the tenets of any religious

sect of the Hindus prescribe that offerings of food should be

given to the idol at particular hours of the day, that periodical

ceremonies should be performed in a certain way at certain

periods of the year or that there should be daily recital of sacred

texts or ablations to the sacred fire, all these would be regarded

as parts of religion and the mere fact that they involve

expenditure of money or employment of priests and servants or

the use of marketable commodities would not make them

secular activities partaking of a commercial or economic

character; all of them are religious practices and should be

regarded as matters of religion within the meaning of Article

26(b).”

Having travelled the aforesaid terrain, the Apex Court concluded by

recording: -

“…freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to

religious beliefs only; it extends to religious practices as well

subject to the restrictions which the Constitution itself has laid

down. Under Article 26(b), therefore, a religious denomination

or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of

deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according

to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority

has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such

matters.”

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :29:

The words “of their own choice” classifying the right vested in a religious

minority to establish and administer educational institutions, must be

visualized in a manner so as to determine how the religious consciousness

views itself. In determining the right conferred under Article 30 of the

Constitution of India, it is essential to determine the salient features of the

religious consciousness, not from the touchstone of a general perception of

the faith in question, but on the clearly prescribed, and the consciously and

persistently followed traits thereof. Therefore, it would be a matter of

defeating the right conferred upon a religious minority institution not to

determine the tenets of a religious consciousness. We, therefore, hereby

conclude that it is within the jurisdiction of courts to adjudicate upon issues

of religion.

25. We must not falter so as to overlook, an objection raised by the

respondents, that it is not within our domain to determine, whether or not,

the Sikh religion prescribes (for its followers) the tenet of keeping bodily

hair unshorn. In our view, nothing could be more preposterous. It would be

impossible to determine the rights flowing under Article 30 of the

Constitution of India, till a Court first determines, whether or not, the

concerned educational institution is being administered by a “religious

minority” or a “linguistic minority”. The Supreme Court examined, to the

minutest detail, different aspects of Aurobindoism, to record a finding (by

majority) that Shri Aurobindo did not propound a religion, in

Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments’ case (supra), relevant

delineated the questions proposed to be answered, in paragraph 17 of the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :30:

judgement in the following words: -

“17.A great many questions were debated before us in the

course of hearing. The important issues can be grouped under

three main heads:

First : Whether St. Stephen's College is a minority-run

institution?

Second :Whether St. Stephen's College as minority institution

is bound by the University circulars dated June 5, 1980 and

June 9, 1980 directing that the College shall admit students

on the basis of merit of the percentage of marks secured by

the students in the qualifying examinations?

Third : Whether St. Stephen's College and the Allahabad

Agricultural Institute are entitled to accord preference to or

reserve seats for students of their own community and

whether such preference or reservation would be invalid

under Article 29(2) of the Constitution?”

While debating on the first question raised in the excerpt reproduced above,

the Supreme Court, referring to the origin, and the object for which the

petitioner – College was set up, examined even the nature of the buildings

where the college was housed from time to time, it also examined the

constitution and the rules of management of the college, so as to conclude in

paragraph 46, that the St. Stephen's College was established and

administered by a minority community, viz., the Christian community,

which indisputably is a religious minority in India, as well as, in the

territory of Delhi, where the college is located.

26. While deciding the second question, the Supreme Court after

examining a number of its earlier judgements, noticed as under in

paragraph 61:-

“61. In the instant case also the impugned directives of the

University to select students on the uniform basis of marks

secured in the qualifying examinations would deny the right of

St. Stephen's College to admit students belonging to Christian

community. It has been the experience of the College as seen

from the chart of selection produced in the case that unless

some concession is provided to Christian students they will

have no chance of getting into the college. If they are thrown

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :31:

into the competition with the generality of students belonging

to other communities, they cannot even be brought within the

zone of consideration for the interview. Even after giving

concession to a certain extent, only a tiny number of minority

applicants would gain admission. This is beyond the pale of

controversy.”

The second question, came to be then answered in paragraph 66, wherein it

was concluded, that St. Stephen's College had the right to determine the

manner of making admissions by adopting a legally legitimate procedure,

and that, it was not bound to regulate admission of students on the basis of

the University circulars.

27. The answer to the third question relating to “minority rights”

required a substantive examination of the history of minority rights.

Whereupon, the Apex Court recorded its conclusion in paragraph 102 as

under: -

“102. In the light of all these principles and factors, and in

view of the importance which the Constitution attaches to

protective measures to minorities under Art. 30(1), the minority

aided educational institutions are entitled to prefer their

community candidates to maintain the minority character of the

institutions subject of course in conformity with the University

standard. The State may regulate the intake in this category

with due regard to the need of the community in the area which

the institution is intended to serve. But in no case such intake

shall exceed fifty per cent. of the annual admission. The

minority institutions shall make available at least fifty per cent.

of the annual admission to members of communities other than

the minority community. The admission of other community

candidates shall be done purely on the basis of merit.”

a particular rite or observance is regarded as essential by the tenets of that

religion. The Apex Court in Jagdishwaranand’s case (supra) examined

whether the ‘tandava dance’ performed by the Anand Margis was a part of

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :32:

their religious rites. The conclusion on the matter was recorded in

paragraph 12 of the judgement, which is being extracted hereunder: -

“The question for consideration now, therefore, is whether

performance of Tandava dance is a religious rite or practice

essential to the tenets of the religious faith of the Ananda

Margis. We have already indicated that tandava dance was not

accepted as an essential religious rite of Ananda Margis when

in 1955 the Ananda Marga order was first established. It is the

specific case of the petitioner that Shri Ananda Murti

introduced tandava as a part of religious rites of Ananda Margis

later in 1966. Ananda Marga as a religious order is of recent

origin and tandava dance as a part of religious rites of that order

is still more recent. It is doubtful as to whether in such

circumstances tandava dance can be taken as an essential

religious rite of the Ananda Margis. Even conceding that it is

so, it is difficult to accept Mr. Tarkunde's argument that taking

out religious processions with tandava dance is an essential

religious rite of Ananda Margis. In paragraph 17 of the writ

petition the petitioner pleaded that "Tandava Dance lasts for a

few minutes where two or three persons dance by lifting one

leg to the level of the chest, bringing it down and lifting the

other." In paragraph 18 it has been pleaded that "when the

Ananda Margis greet their spiritual preceptor at the airport, etc.,

they arrange for a brief welcome dance of tandava wherein one

or two persons use the skull and symbolic knife and dance for

two or three minutes." In paragraph 26 it has been pleaded that

"Tandava is a custom among the sect members and it is a

customary performance and its origin is over four thousand

years old, hence it is not a new invention of Ananda Margis."

On the basis of the literature of the Ananda Marga

denomination it has been contended that there is prescription of

the performance of tandava dance by every follower of Ananda

Marga. Even conceding that tandava dance has been prescribed

as a religious rite for every follower of the Ananda Marga it

does not follow as a necessary corollary that tandava dance to

be performed in the public is a matter of religious rite. In fact,

there is no justification in any of the writings of Shri Ananda

Murti that tandava dance must be performed in public. At least

none could be shown to us by Mr. Tarkunde despite an enquiry

by us in that behalf. We are, therefore, not in a position to

accept the contention of Mr. Tarkunde that performance of

tandava dance in a procession or at public places is an essential

religious rite to be performed by every Ananda Margi.”

It is, therefore, apparent that before the adjudication of the rights flowing

out of Articles 29 and 30, if it is necessary to settle any other intervening

issues, and that, it is open to a court to consider and decide the same. We,

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :33:

accordingly, hereby conclude that it is within the jurisdiction of this Court

to decide, whether or not, keeping one’s hair unshorn is an essential tenet of

the Sikh religion.

28. The entire objective of the framers of the Constitution of India,

in so far as minority rights are concerned, was to afford them adequate

protection. A measure adopted to preserve the respective “religious

minority” or “linguistic minority” as it existed. Equality is the cherished

touchstone of an egalitarian society. The preservation of the right to

equality for the different shades of minorities, was sought to be attempted in

the different provisions of Chapter III of the Constitution of India.

Expression was given to the aforesaid provisions by the Supreme Court in

Mathew, while supporting the majority view, expressed the basis of the

protection afforded to minorities in the following words: -

“It is necessary in the interest of clarity of thought to begin with

an understanding of the real reason for protection of minorities

in a democratic polity.

“Protection of minorities is the protection of non-document

groups, which, while wishing in general for equality of

treatment with the majority, wish for a measure of

differential treatment in order to preserve basic

characteristics which they possess and which distinguish

them from the majority of the population. The protection

applies equally to individuals belonging to such groups and

wishing the same protection. It follows that differential

treatment of such groups or of individuals belonging to such

groups is justified when it is exercised in the interest of

their contentment and the welfare of the community as a

whole". The recommendation by the Sub-Commission in its

report to the Commission on Human Rights-quoted at p.27

of "Minority Protection and International Bill of Human

Rights" By Urmila Haksar.”

The problem of the minorities is not really a problem of the

establishment of equality because if taken literally, such

equality would mean absolute identical treatment of both the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :34:

minorities and the majorities. This would result only in equality

in law but inequality in fact. The distinction need not be

elaborate for it is obvious that

“equality in law precludes discrimination of any kind;

whereas equality in fact may involve the necessity of

differential treatment in order to attain a result which

establishes an equilibrium between different situations".

It may sound paradoxical but it is nevertheless true that

minorities can be protected not only if they have equality but

also, in certain circumstances, differential treatment.

Over one and a half decades ago, Chief Justice Das led this

Court in holding that without recognition, the educational

institutions established or to be established by the minority

communities cannot fulfil the real objects of their choice and

that the right under Article 30 (1) cannot be effectively

exercised. He said that the right to establish educational

institutions of their choice means the right to establish real

institutions which will effectively serve the needs of their

community and the scholars who resort to their educational

institutions and that though there is no such thing as a

fundamental right to recognition by the State, yet to deny

recognition to the educational institutions except upon terms

tantamount to the surrender of their constitutional right of

administration of the educational institutions of their choice is

in truth and in effect to deprive them of their rights under

Article 30 (1) (see In re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957, 1959

SCR 995 = (AIR 1958 SC 956) (supra).

The reason why the Constitution-makers were at pains to grant

religious minorities the fundamental right to establish and

administer educational institutions of their choice is to give the

parents in those communities an opportunity to educate their

children in institutions having an atmosphere which is

congenial to their religion. Whatever be one's own

predilections those who think that man does not live by bread

alone 1434 but also by the word that comes from God cannot

remain indifferent to the problem of religion in relation to and

as part of education.

As a matter of fact, according to several religious minorities,

the State maintains a system of schools and colleges which is

not completely satisfactory to them, inasmuch as no place is

given to religion and morality. The sheer omission of religion

from curriculum is itself a pressure against religion. Since they

realize that the teaching of religion and instruction in the

secular branches cannot rightfully or successfully be separated

one from the other, they are compelled to maintain their own

system of schools and colleges for general education as well as

for religious instruction.

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :35:

“It is important to examine the raison d'etre of educational

institutions administered by religious groups. Clearly, their

establishment does not come about because of a deep

conviction that such institutions will be able to teach the

facts of literature, geography or mathematics better than

State schools. Rather, such schools are started with a

primarily religious objective - to secure the opportunity for

direct religious instruction and to develop a religious

atmosphere and view point even for the study of literature,

geography and mathematics. In other words, a religious

body establishes and maintains schools in order to create a

total environment which will be favourable to the

promotion of its particular religious "values". See India as a

Secular State" by Donald Eugene Smith, p. 361.”

It is perhaps, possible to secularize subjects such as

Mathematics, Physics or Chemistry, but as Justice Jackson

said:

“Music without sacred music, architecture minus the

cathedral or painting without the scriptural themes would

be eccentric and incomplete, even from a secular point of

view. Yet the inspirational appeal of religion in these guises

is often stronger than in forthright sermon. Even such a

'science' as biology raises the issue between evolution and

creation as an explanation of our presence on this

planet....But how one can teach, with satisfaction or even

with justice to all faiths, such subjects as the story of the

Reformation, the Inquisition is more than one can

understand. It is too much to expect that mortals will teach

subjects about which their contemporaries have passionate

controversies with the detachment they summon to teaching

about remote subjects such as Confucious or Mohamet".

See the opinion of Justice Jackson in McCollum v. Board

of Education, (1947) 333 US 203.”

The State cannot insist that the children belonging to the

religious minority community should be educated in State

maintained educational institutions or in educational

institutions conducted by the majority. The State's interest in

education, so far as religious minorities are concerned, would

be served sufficiently by reliance on secular education

accompanied by optional religious training in minority schools

and colleges, if the secular education is conducted their

according to the prescribed curriculum and standard. Article 28

(3) implies that a religious minority administering an

educational institution imparting general secular education has

the liberty to provide for religious education in the institution.

The continued willingness to rely on colleges conducted by

religious or linguistic minorities for imparting secular

education strongly suggests that a wide segment of informed

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :36:

opinion has found that these colleges do an acceptable job of

providing secular education. The State, concededly, has power

to regulate and control the education of its children, but it

cannot, by a general law compelling attendance at public school

or college, preclude attendance at the school or college

established by the religious minority when the parents seek to

secure the benefit of religious instruction not provided in public

schools. The parents have the right to determine to which

school or college their children should be sent for education.”

In this behalf, it is pertinent to mention, that exactly the instant contention,

as has been projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners, was

accepted by the Allahabad High Court in favour of candidates who claimed

a superior right on the basis of their higher position in the merit list. The

Court while rejecting the view expressed by the High Court, observed: -

“Before grappling with the issue, we may turn to the decision

of the High Court of Allahabad which is under appeal before

us. The students were denied admission though they had

secured a high percentage of marks in the competitive test held

by the Institute. The denial was in view of the fact that a large

number of seats had been reserved for Church sponsored

candidates and tribals. The contention of the petitioners was

that the reservation was violative of Article 29(2) since it was

based on religion. The High Court accepted the contention and

inter alia, held that the denial of admission to more merited

candidates on the ground of religion was impermissible. The

institution also could not -reserve seats for members of its

community. The constitutional concept of religious autonomy

in education in Art. 30(1) has to be balanced with the

constitutional guarantee under Article 29(2). Both the Articles

operate in the same field namely; educational institutions. The

right guaranteed to minorities under Art. 30(1) to establish and

administer educational institutions of their choice cannot be

read in isolation, and it has to be interpreted in a manner that it

does not destroy the right in Art. 29(2). The High Court has

finally observed that the right of admission which vests in an

institution by virtue of the power of administration under

Article 30(1) cannot be in violation of Art. 29(2).

It seems to us that the High Court has followed the liberal

individualist theory. The liberal individualist theory is

generally the Western political theory since the period of the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :37:

American and French revolutions. The High Court gave little or

no attention to the positive minority rights with respect to

language, religion, education and cultural rights guaranteed

under the Constitution. It has failed to consider the

predominating emphasis expressed in Article 30(1). It has

overlooked the difference in perspective underlying in Articles

29(2) and 30(1).”

The importance of the right envisaged under Article 30 of the Constitution

of India was highlighted by the Supreme Court by comparing the same with

Article 29 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, the Supreme Court in

St. Stephen's College’s case (supra) noticed in paragraph 78 as under: -

“78. Having set the scene, we can deal with the provisions of

Articles 29(1) and 30(1) relatively quickly. Under Article 29(1)

every section of the citizens having a distinct language, script

or culture of its own has the right to conserve the same. Under

Article 29(1), the minorities - religious or linguistic - are

entitled to establish and administer educational institutions to

conserve their distinct language, script or culture. However, it

has been consistently held by the Courts that the right to

establish an educational institution is not confined to purposes

of conservation of language, script or culture. The rights in

Article 30(1) are of wider amplitude. The width of article30(1)

can not be cut down by the considerations on which Article 29

(1) is based. The words "of their choice" in Article 30(1) leave

vast options to the minorities in selecting the type of

educational institutions which they wish to establish. They can

establish institutions to conserve their distinct language, script

or culture or for imparting general secular education or for both

the purposes.”

Illustrating the matter of preservation of minority rights in paragraph 85, the

Supreme Court observed:-

“85. The fact that Article 29(2) applies to minorities as well as

non-minorities does not mean that it was intended to nullify the

special right guaranteed to minorities in Article 30 (1). Article

29 (2) deals with non-discrimination and it is available only to

individuals. The general equality by non-discrimination is not

the only goal of minorities. The minorities rights under the

majority rule implies more than non-discrimination and indeed,

it begins with non-discrimination. Protection of interests and

institutions and advancement of opportunity are just as

important. Differential treatment that distinguishes them from

he majority is a must to preserve their basic characteristics. To

be blunt, black men do not, wish to be white. Jews do not wish

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :38:

to be Protestants. Serbs do not want to be Croats. French

Canadians do not want to lose their French heritage. There are

many other instances, including the Corsicans in France, the

Irish Catholics in Ulster, the French Canadians in Quebec, the

Albanians in Kosovo Yogoslavia, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, the

Islamic separatists in the Phillipines, and the Animist and

Christian minorities in southern Sudan. The problem in India is

not quite different. India is a multi-cultural and multi-religious

society. It is an extraordinary pluralistic and complex society

with different religious minorities. Besides there are linguistic

aspirations and caste considerations. There may be individuals

in the 1660 minority group who want to assimilate into the

majority, but the group itself has a collective interest for nonassimilation.

It is interested in the preservation and promotion

as a community. This appears to be the chief reason for which

Article 30 (1) was incorporated as a fundamental right. Article

27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

(1966) also lays a foundation in this regard. It states :

“In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic

minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities

shall not be denied the right, in community with the other

members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to

profess and practice their own religion, or to use their

own language”.

The question whether Article 30 gives the right to minorities to prefer

candidates belonging to the “religious minority” which had established the

institution and was administering the same, was posed in paragraph 90 of

the judgement in St. Stephen's College’s case (supra) and concluded in

paragraph 102. The conclusion recorded by the Supreme Court is being

reproduced hereunder: -

“In the light of all these principles and factors, and in view of

the importance which the Constitution attaches to protective

measures to minorities under Art. 30(1), the minority aided

educational institutions are entitled to prefer their community

candidates to maintain the minority character of the institutions

subject of course in conformity with the University standard.

The State may regulate the intake in this category with due

regard to the need of the community in the area which the

institution is intended to serve. But in no case such intake shall

exceed fifty per cent. of the annual admission. The minority

institutions shall make available at least fifty per cent. of the

annual admission to members of communities other than the

minority community. The admission of other community

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :39:

candidates shall be done purely on the basis of merit.”

The declared legal position is, therefore, clear i.e. a religious minority

institution can reserve seats to be filled up by the candidates belonging to

the said minority community alone. The conclusion in respect of

reservation of seats for a minority, in a minority institution, recorded in St.

Xaviers College’s case (supra) was affirmed by the Supreme Court in TMA

Pai Foundation Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002)8 SCC 481 with some

modifications. The majority view on this aspect of the matter held as

under:-

“The right of the aided minority institution to preferably admit

students of its community, when Art. 29(2) was applicable, has

been clarified by this Court over a decade ago in the St.

Stephen's College case. While upholding the procedure for

admitting students, this Court also held that aided minority

educational institutions were entitled to preferably admit their

community candidates so as to maintain the minority character

of the institution, and that the State may regulate the intake in

this category with due regard to the area that the institution was

intended to serve, but that this intake should not be more than

50% in any case. Thus St. Stephen's endeavoured to strike a

balance between the two articles. Though we accept the ratio of

St. Stephen's, which has held the field for over a decade, we

have compelling reservations in accepting the rigid percentage

stipulated therein. As Art. 29 and Art. 30 apply not only to

institutions of higher education but also to schools, a ceiling of

50% would not be proper. It will be more appropriate that,

depending upon the level of the institution, whether it be a

primary or secondary or high school or a college, professional

or otherwise, and on the population and educational needs of

the area in which the institution is to be located, the State

properly balances the interests of all by providing for such a

percentage of students of the minority community to be

admitted, so as to adequately serve the interest of the

community for which the institution was established.”

29. In our quest to search for the significance of the “kesh/keshas”

(hair) for the Sikh religion, we would be examining the issue under

reference under a series of heads, including the historical background of the

Sikh religion, legislative enactments involving the Sikh religion, the “Sikh

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :40:

rehat-maryada (i.e. code of Sikh conduct and conventions) the “Sikh

ardas”, the Guru Granth Sahib, as also, the views expressed by experts on

the subject of Sikhism, besides the opinion of interveners.

Historical background, and

Legislative enactments involving the Sikh religion:

The Gurdwaras Act, 1922.

30. The historical background relating to the administration of

“Sikh gurdwaras” (Sikh temples) which lead to the enactment/promulgation

of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, we were told, would go a long way in our

pursuit to determine the right answer, to the present controversy. In order to

trace historical facts, reference must be made to the views expressed by

Professor Ruchi Ram Sahni, in his book captioned “Struggle for Reform in

Sikh Shrines” (published in 1960 by Sikh Itihas Research Board) which

notices as under: -

“During the time of the Sikh Gurus themselves, the

“gurdwaras” were either under their direct supervision and

control or under their Masands (missionary agents). After the

tenth Guru, when the Panth (community) was recognized, as a

matter of doctrine, as the corporate representative of the Guru

on earth, the conduct of the Gurdwaras naturally passed into the

hands of the Panth and was exercised through Granthis and

other Sewadars (incumbents) who were under the direct

supervision of the Local Sangats (congregations).”

“In Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s time Sikhism became the State

religion. Large estates were attached to the more important

Gurdwaras though some Jagirs had also been granted the more

liberal among other Mughall Emperors – Throughout the pre-

British times the Sangats (congregation) were supposed to be in

charge of the Gurdwaras. They exercised the right to punish

anyone who happened to transgress the social and religious

injunctions of the faith.”

The same author describes the condition of “Sikh gurdwaras” on the advent

of British Rules in the following words: -

“After the establishment of the British rule (1849), a radical

change came about in the legal position of the Mahants in

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :41:

respect of the “gurdwaras”. The new law in its practical

working converted the Mahants, who were mere servants of the

Panth, in no virtual proprietors of the temples. Being no longer

responsible to the community, the Mahants began to

misappropriate the income of the “gurdwaras” to their private

use and alienate or sell the trust property at will.

Irresponsibility and wealth inevitably resulted in immorality

and the places of worship became the haunts of evil men. In

these circumstances, the first thought of the Sikhs was to

recover control of their Gurdwaras through the law courts, but

it was not very long before they came to realize the difficulties

of the new situation in which they found themselves. To the

dilatory procedure of the courts and the heavy expenses

involved in litigation, was added, as they now realized, the

unsympathetic attitude of the government. The officials were

reluctant, they came to believe, to see the Gurdwaras pass into

the hands of the Panth because nothing was likely to

Consolidated them so much and make them into a compact and

powerful body as the control and supervision of their holy

places. Round the Holy Granth and the Gurdwaras revolved

the social and religious life of the whole community.”

For the years preceding 1922, most important of the Sikh shrines, such as

the Golden Temple, Shri Akal Takht Sahib at Amritsar and the Baba Attal

were entirely in the hands of the government. The remaining sacred places

of pilgrimages and the “Sikh gurdwaras” with their astounding income,

were in the possession of “mahants” (incharge of Sikh gurdwaras). As a

consequence of a dispute between the Sikhs fighting for the cause of lower

castes (who were then described as untouchables) on the one hand, and the

“pujaris” (priests) managing the Golden Temple, Amritsar, on the other, the

Golden Temple, as well as, the Akal Takht came into the hands of the

Sikhs, whereafter the “pujaris” left the same. At that time, it was decided to

constitute a committee for the management of the “Sikh gurdwaras”. The

government, accordingly constituted (through the Maharaja of Patiala), a

committee of 36 members to devise plans for the better management of the

“Sikh gurdwaras”. The Sikh community considered this an undue

interference. A congregation was, accordingly, summoned by the Sikhs at

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :42:

Amritsar, which resulted in the formation of the SGPC. The SGPC so

constituted, commenced to take steps for improving and reforming the

management of the “Sikh gurdwaras". This step was, however, strongly

opposed by “mahants” who were then incharge of “Sikh gurdwaras”. The

stage was, accordingly, set for the government of the time to intervene yet

again. As per historical records, the control of the Golden Temple moved

from the hands of the SGPC to the government. It is not necessary for us

for the purposes of the present controversy, to delve into the niceties of the

dispute between the rival parties, so far as the issue of taking control of the

“Sikh gurdwaras” is concerned.

31. The first Gurdwara Bill was introduced in the Punjab

Legislative Council on 7.11.1922 by the British government, against the

wishes of the Sikh community. On this aspect of the matter, the views

expressed by Professor Ruchi Ram Sahni in his book “Struggle for Reforms

in Sikh Shrines” may be noticed as under: -

“It is a noteworthy fact that the Gurdwaras Bill introduced in

the legislative Council by Sir Fazil-i-Hussain was framed in

defiance of the desires and opinion of even the moderate

sections of the Sikhs who were then on the legislative Council.

They, therefore, refused to serve on the Selection Committee,

four of them who were actually named did not attend a single

meeting and the fifth Bawa Hardit Singh Bedi.”

32. The Sikh Gurdwaras and Shrines Act, 1922 (hereinafter

referred to as the Gurdwara Act of 1922) was enacted on 8.12.1922. Its

preamble declared its objectives, namely, the administration and

management of “Sikh gurdwaras" and the mechanism of settlement of

disputes connected therewith. The Gurdwara Act of 1922, distinguished

places of Sikh worship in commemoration of any incident in the life of any

of the ten Sikh “gurus” from the places of worship erected in the memory of

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :43:

Sikh martyrs or Sikh saints. Professor Ruchi Ram Sahni records that the

management of most of the “Sikh gurdwaras” before 1925 came into the

hands of the SGPC. On this aspect of the matter, his observations in his

book “Struggle for Reforms in Sikh shrines” are as under : -

“In the prevailing condition of uncertainty and general

uneasiness, the newly formed society for the management of

the Gurdwaras, which had by this time provided itself with a

Constitution and a somewhat pompous name, had now begun to

take into its own possessions and control such of the Gurdwaras

as they could without much difficulty. In the circumstances of

the time it is not surprising that while the Shiromani Gurdwara

Parbandhak Committee (written briefly SGPC) or the more

religious minded or the more prudent Mahants realizing that

their personal interest or the interest of the shrines in their

charge lay in their seeking the protection of the committee that

has been formed specially for the purpose of managing and

maintaining the Gurdwaras on lines consistent with the

teachings of the gurus and the wishes of the community, had

voluntarily placed the Gurdwaras under the control of SGPC,

some other Mahants, on the other hand, believed that their own

interests could be better served by continuing to manage the

Gurdwaras on the lines on which they had hitherto been doing,

namely, with the support and guidance of the local officials. It

is not improbable that in some cases, at least, some Akalis may

have actually taken forcible possession of the Gurdwaras.”

33. The aforesaid narration depicts the initiation of control over the

management and affairs of “Sikh gurdwaras”.

The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

34. The Sikh Gurdwara Act of 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the

Gurdwara Act of 1925) came into force with effect from 1.11.1925. With

this, the Gurdwara Act of 1922 was repealed. The Gurdwara Act of 1925

had territorial jurisdiction over the erstwhile State of Punjab and the Patiala

East Punjab States Union (PEPSU i.e. the territories which merged into the

composite State of Punjab on 1.11.1956). Before embarking upon the

examination of the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, pertaining to

the subject under reference, it would be pertinent to record, that the instant

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :44:

enactment was aimed at regulating the places of Sikh worship i.e. “Sikhs

gurdwaras”. It, accordingly, provided for the constitution of an apex Sikh

body i.e. the SGPC. This brought the “Sikh gurdwaras” effectively and

permanently under the control of the Sikh community, so as to make them

consistent with the religious views of the Sikhs. According to the objects

and reasons of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, the Gurdwara Act of 1922 had

failed to satisfy the aspirations of Sikhs for various reasons. The enactment

provided purely for a “Sikh management” of “Sikh interests” secured by

statutory and legal sanction. The scheme of management provided under

the Gurdwara Act of 1925, introduced elected members and formation of

committees of management. Under the Gurdwara Act of 1925, the

functions and powers of the elected members and of the committees of

management were expressly defined.

35. Having examined the historical background of the facts which

resulted in the promulgation of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, we would limit

our examination of the provisions of the Act to the definition of the term

“Sikh”, as also, to the variants thereof. We would also bring out the

particular variant of the Sikh community, which was vested with

responsibility of carrying out the objectives enshrined under the Gurdwara

Act of 1925.

36. The term “Sikh” is defined in section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act

of 1925, which reads as under: --

“2(9). “Sikh” means a person who professes the Sikh religion

or, in the case of a deceased person, who professed the Sikh

religion or was known to be a Sikh during his life time.

If any question arises as to whether any living person is or is

not a Sikh, he shall be deemed respectively to be or not to be a

Sikh according as he makes or refuses to make in such manner

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :45:

as the State Government, may prescribe the following

declaration:-

I solemnly affirm that I am a Sikh, that I believe in the Guru

Granth Sahib, that I believe in the Ten Gurus and that I have no

other religion.”

37. Under the Gurdwara Act of 1925, the term “amritdhari Sikh”

has been defined in section 2(10) and the term “sehajdhari Sikh” in section

2(10-A). It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that

for a complete and effective understanding of the term “Sikh”, besides

making reference to the other two definitions of the terms “amritdhari Sikh”

and “sehajdhari Sikh”, it will also be essential to make a reference to the

term “patit” defined in section 2(11) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. Subsections

(10), (10-A) and (11) of section 2 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925,

are accordingly, being extracted hereunder: -

“2(10) “Amritdhari Sikh” means and includes every person who

administered according to the tenets of Sikh religion and rites,

(10-A) “Sehjdhari” means a person-

(i) who performs ceremonies according to Sikh rites;

(ii) who does not use tobacco or Kutha (Halal meat) in any

form;

(iii) who is not a Patit; and

(iv) who can recite Mul Manter.

2(11) “Patit” means a person who being a keshadhari Sikh trims

or shaves his beard or keshas or who after taking amrit commits

any one or more of the kurahits including disrespect to the

hair.”

38. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the term

“Sikh” as defined in section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, cannot be

subjected to any alteration, whatsoever. In fact, it is the vehement

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :46:

contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that sub-sections (10),

(10-A) and (11) of section 2 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, are not only

contrary, but also repulsive, to the definition of the term “Sikh” in section

2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. According to the learned counsel for the

petitioners, for the definition of the term Sikh, section 2(9) of the Gurdwara

Act of 1925 should be considered as the lead provision, and all other

provisions, including sub-sections (10), (10-A) and (11) of section 2 of the

Gurdwara Act of 1925, would have to be read down so as to make the same

harmonious with the former. In view of their contrary nature, it is the

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, that sub-sections (10),

(10-A) and (11) of section 2 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925 are ultra vires the

provisions of section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925 (i.e. the lead

provision defining the term Sikh).

39. According to the learned counsel for respondent No.2 i.e. the

SGPC, there is no conflict, whatsoever, between the provisions referred to

hereinabove, and that, it is a harmonious construction of the aforesaid

provisions that will lead to an eventual determination of the definition of the

term Sikh.

40. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 acknowledges, that

section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925 is the lead provision for defining

the term Sikh. It is, however, submitted that the ingredients of the term

Sikh become apparent from a close and collective perusal of sections 2(10),

2(10-A) and 2(11) alongwith section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. It

is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that even a

cursory perusal of section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925 shows, that a

Sikh is one who professes the Sikh religion. Referring to the declaration

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :47:

contained in section 2(9) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, it is the contention

of learned counsel for respondent No.2, that a declaration at the hands of an

individual by itself would not make him a Sikh. It is only a “truthful”

declaration that an individual professes the Sikh religion, believes in the ten

“Sikh gurus”, as also, in the Guru Granth Sahib, and that he is not a follower

of any other religion, that would lead to the conclusion that he professes the

Sikh religion.

41. In so far as professing of the Sikh religion is concerned, learned

counsel for respondent No.2 has invited our attention to the “Sikh rehatmaryada”

(copy whereof is available on the record of the case as Annexure

R-2). According to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the “Sikh

rehat-maryada” constitutes the code of Sikh conduct and conventions, and

only such an individual who follows the code of Sikh conduct and

conventions, can be described as a person who “professes” the Sikh

religion.

42. An individual who enters the fold of the Sikh religion,

according to the learned counsel for the SGPC, is described as a “sehajdhari

Sikh” defined in section 2(10-A) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. Simply

stated for the present purpose, according to him, a “sehajdhari Sikh” is one

who is not a “patit”. Again, limited to the present controversy, a “patit” is a

person who being a “keshadhari”, trims or shaves his beard or “kesh”.

This, according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, necessarily

leads to the further inference that a “sehajdhari Sikh” is a “keshadhari” but

not a “patit”. It is the submission of the learned counsel, that anyone with

shorn hair, would be a “patit”. According to learned counsel, having come

into the fold of the Sikh religion as a “sehajdhari Sikh” i.e. a person who

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :48:

maintains unshorn hair, it is open to an individual to proceed to acquire a

higher form under the “Sikh rehat-maryada” as an “amritdhari Sikh” by

taking “khande ka amrit” or “khande-di-pahul” (which can be simply

described as rituals of Sikh baptism).

43. In view of the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned

counsel for respondent No.2, though the term Sikh is defined in section 2(9)

of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, it is further explained by sections 2(10), 2

(10-A) and 2(11) of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. According to the learned

counsel, the aforesaid sub-sections categorise Sikhs as either “sehajdhari

Sikhs” (who must essentially be “keshadharis) or as “amritdhari Sikh” (i.e.

when a “sehajdhari Sikh” has undergone the ritual of Sikh baptism).

44. By our order dated 29.9.2008, we had directed the SGPC to file

an affidavit based on a resolution passed by the SGPC so as to clarify

“whether or not a person who cuts his hair and/or shaves his beard, is a

“sehijdhari Sikh”, even if he performs all the prescribed ceremonies

according to the Sikh rites, does not use tobacco or “katha” in any form and

can recite “mool mantar” (with reference to section 2(10-A) of the

Gurdwara Act of 1925). In furtherance of the aforesaid direction issued by

us, in the first instance, Shri Harbeant Singh, Secretary, SGPC, filed an

affidavit dated 5.12.2008, inter-alia, stating as under: -

“… the stand of the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandhak

Committee in response to the query raised by this Hon’ble

court in its order dated 29.9.2008, is as under: --

(i) The definitions of various words and phrases, used in the

Sikh Gurdwara Act , 1925 are provided in section 2 of the said

Act. These definitions are relevant for the purpose of the

interpretation of the substantive provisions of the said Act.

(ii) As per section 2(10-A) a Sehijdhari Sikh is a person (i) who

performs ceremonies according to Sikh rites; (ii) who does not

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :49:

use tobacco, kutha, Halal meat in any form; (iii) who is not a

Patit (Apostate), and (iv) who can recite Mulmantra (Proem to

Sri Guru Granth Sahib). The word sehijdhari consists of two

words; Sahaj= slowly; dhari= to adopt. Hence Sehijdhar Sikhs

are those novices who were born in non-Sikh families, and who

expressed their desire to adopt Sikhism slowly and gradually,

adopt its doctrines, ethics and tenets with belief in Shri Guru

Granth Sahib and ten Gurus. A Sahajdhari, therefore, is a

novice who has entered the path of Sikhism, and he will

continue to be so till he fully accepts the moral and spiritual

vows of Sikhism, to be called a practicing Sikh professing

Sikhism. Once a Sahajdhari becomes a Keshadhari Sikh, he

under no circumstances by cutting/trimming his/her hair,

beard, eye-brows in any manner can claim to be a Sehijdhar

Sikh. Similarly, a Sikh born into a Sikh family cannot claim to

be a Sahajdhari Sikh by trimming/cutting his/her hair, beard or

eye-brows in any manner."

Subsequently, Shri Dalmegh Singh, Secretary, SGPC, filed a clarificatory

affidavit dated 16.1.2009 on the basis of another decision taken by the

SGPC, wherein representatives of Sikh bodies and Sikh intellectuals were

invited to discuss the issue on 2.1.2009. Thereafter, the draft prepared by

the aforestated representatives, was unanimously approved by the Executive

Committee of the SGPC on 15.1.2009. According to the affidavit, the final

stand of the SGPC in respect of its interpretation of the term “sehijdhari

Sikh” is as under: -

“As per section 2(10-A) and 2(11) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act,

1925, Sahajdhari Sikh is that person: --

(i) Who performs ceremonies according to Sikh rites;

(ii) Who does not use tobacco or Kutha in any form;

(iii) Who is not a “patit”; and

(iv) Who can recite mul mantar;

2(11) ‘Patit’ means a person, who being a Keshadhari Sikh,

trims or shaves his beard or Keshas or who after taking amrit

commits any one or more of the four kurahits.

It becomes clear from a perusal of both these sub-sections that

“Sehijdhar Sikh” and “Patit” are two separate entities. Subsection

says that any keshadhari Sikh, who cuts/trims his hair

and beard, is a patit. So, it is clear that a person “ who

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :50:

cuts/trims his beard/hair, although he might be performing his

ceremonies like Sikhs, he might not be using tobacco, kutha

meat in any form and could recite ‘Mul Mantar’, he cannot be a

Sahajdhari, because he cuts/trims his hair and beard and as per

the sections mentioned above of this Act, he cannot be a

“Sehijdhar Sikh”.

45. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions

advanced by the learned counsel for the rival parties, we express our

satisfaction, and accordingly affirm, the interpretation of the provisions

noticed hereinabove at the hands of the learned counsel for respondent

No.2. In our considered view, a Sikh, essentially is a person who professes

the Sikh religion. To determine, whether or not, a person professes the Sikh

religion, it would have to be determined, whether or not, he abides by the

“Sikh rehat-maryada”. We are also of the view, that for defining the term

Sikh, sub-sections (9), (10), (10-A) and (11) of 2 of the Gurdwara Act of

1925 will have to be interpreted harmoniously, so as to give true effect to

the intent of the legislation. From a collective reading of the aforesaid subsections

of Section 2 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, we are of the view, that

the aforesaid legislative enactment postulates different levels/grades of

Sikhs. The lowest grade/level envisaged under the Gurdwara Act of 1925

is a “sehajdhari Sikh”. A “sehajdhari Sikh” as noticed above, is essentially

a “keshadhari Sikh” (i.e., one who maintains his hair unshorn). The

uppermost level/grade of a Sikh under the Gurdwara Act of 1925 is an

“amritdhari Sikh”. The Gurdwara Act of 1925 refers to the term “patit” as

a Sikh who has fallen from grace. A “patit” is one who inter-alia “shaves

his beard or keshas”. A “patit” is not entitled to any benefit of office or

authority under the Gurdwara Act of 1925. In other words, a “patit” is one

who is excluded from the benefits which a Sikh can claim under the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :51:

Gurdwara Act of 1925. Thus read, besides understanding the minimum

requirements so as to be termed as a Sikh, one must adhere to the tenet of

keeping ones hair uncut. In the absence of adherence with the instant tenet,

the individual would fall within the term defined as “patit” as he/she does

not maintain his/her hair unshorn. Essentially, it is imperative for us to

conclude, that the lowest form of attainment to enter the fold of the Sikh

religion under the Gurdwara Act of 1925, is a “sehajdhari Sikh”, and that,

to be a “sehajdhari” Sikh, a Sikh who has to be a “keshadhari” (one who

maintains his hair unshorn).

46. Our observations, as have been recorded hereinabove, are

limited to the definition of the term Sikh under the Gurdwara Act of 1925,

and not for any other purpose, whatsoever. Even the various categories of

Sikhs described by us hereinabove, are in reference to specific provisions of

the Gurdwara Act of 1925 alone. Reference may also be made to section 45

and 46 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, which lay down the qualifications of

elected members and nominated members and to sections 49 of the

Gurdwara Act of 1925, which lays down the qualifications of electors. The

aforesaid provisions are being extracted hereunder : -

not be eligible for election as a member of the Board if such

person—

(i) is of unsound mind;

(ii) is an undischarged insolvent,

(iv) is a minister of a Notified Sikh Gurdwara, other than the

head minister of the Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, or of one of the

four Sikh Takhts specified in clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of

section 43.

(v) is a paid servant of any Notified Sikh Gurdwara, or of the

Board other than a member of the executive committee of the

Board.

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :52:

(vii) takes alcoholic drinks;

(viii) not being a blind person cannot read and write

Gurmukhi.

(2) No person shall be eligible for election as a member of the

Board if he is not registered on the electoral roll of any

constituency specified in Schedule IV.

2(A) No person shall be eligible for election to the Board if he

is less than twenty-five years of age.

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) no

person shall be prevented from standing as a candidate for

election as a member of the Board on the ground that he is a

be nominated or co-opted to be a member of the Board if he—

(i) is less than twenty-one years old;

(ii) is not a Sikh;

(iii) is of unsound mind;

(iv) is an undischarged insolvent;

(vi) is minister of a Notified Sikh Gurdwara other than the

head minister of the Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, or of any of the

four Sikh Takhts specified in clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of

section 43;

(vii) is a paid servant of any Notified Sikh Gurdwara or of the

Board, other than a member of the executive committee of the

Board.

(ix) takes alcoholic drinks;

(x) not being a blind person cannot read and write Gurmukhi.

to have his name registered on the electoral roll of a

constituency constituted for the election of a member or

members of the Board who is a resident in that constituency

and either—

(i) xx xx xx xx

(ii) is a Sikh more than twenty-one years of age, who has had

his name registered as a voter in such manner as may be

prescribed:

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :53:

Provided that no person shall be registered as an elector who—

(b) smokes;

(c) takes alcoholic drinks.”

A collective perusal of the aforesaid provisions reveals, that a Sikh who is

not a “patit” i.e. a “keshadhari”, has the right to be on the electoral rolls.

As such, the right to vote, is only vested in a “keshadhari Sikh”. Despite

being a “keshadhari”, and as such, a “sehajdhari Sikh”, a person cannot be

elected to the Board of the SGPC unless he has proceeded to acquire the

higher form as an “amritdhari Sikh”. A person cannot be nominated as a

member of the Board, if he is a “patit”. He must, therefore, be a “keshadhari

Sikh”, and as such, must be satisfying the requirements of a “sehajdhari

Sikh” even for being nominated to the Board of the SGPC.

47. At this stage, it would also be fruitful to make a reference to

section 132 of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. The same is, accordingly, being

extracted hereunder:-

in general meeting make bye-laws, not inconsistent with this

Act, regulating its procedure, and the fees to be levied under

the provisions of sub-section (8) of section 137, provided that

the Board shall not, without the previous sanction of the State

Government, make any bye-law—

(a) prescribing the form in which the budgets of the Board and

of committee shall be presented;

(b) providing for the custody and investment of the funds of the

Board and prescribing the procedure by which sanction of the

Board may be accorded to the deposits of surplus funds in

specified banks;

(c) prescribing the qualification of candidates for membership

of the Board and committees;

and provided further that no bye-law falling within the purview

because he is a Sahjdhari Sikh.

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :54:

(2) All bye-laws requiring the previous sanction of the State

Government under the provisions of sub-section (1) shall when

made be published in the Official Gazette.

(3) Bye-laws framed under this section shall have force of law.”

The proviso under clause (c) of sub-section (1) restrains the Board from

disqualifying an individual who is a “sehajdhari Sikh” for membership of

the Board itself or the committees constituted by the Board.

48. From a collective perusal of the provisions of the Gurdwara

Act of 1925, it can safely be concluded, that retaining hair unshorn is an

essential requirement for a Sikh to be entitled to claim the least of the rights

referred to under the Act. A “patit” i.e., one who does not maintain his hair

unshorn, has no status or right therein. This clearly brings out the

importance of unshorn hair for the Sikh religion.

The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971.

49. The Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1971 and the various provisions

thereof having a bearing on the present controversy were brought to our

notice by Mr. KTS Tulsi, Senior Advocate, Mr. H.S. Phoolka, Senior

Advocate and Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate.

50. Just like the Gurdwara Act of 1925, so also, the Gurdwara Act

of 1971, provides for the proper management of the “Sikh gurdwaras”, as

also, for the proper management of the properties of such "gurdwaras". The

primary difference being the territorial jurisdiction of the two enactments.

Insofar as, the Gurdwara Act of 1925 is concerned, the same has

jurisdiction over territories comprising the erstwhile State of Punjab and

PEPSU (prior to 1.11.1956). The territorial jurisdiction of the Gurdwara

Act of 1971, is limited to Delhi, as is apparent from the title of the Act

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :55:

itself.

51. The limited examination of the instant statutory enactment at

our hands, is to determine the sanctity of “kesh/keshas” for the purpose of

the Sikh religion. In so far as, the Gurdwara Act of 1971 is concerned, the

same also defines the term Sikh. The definition of the term Sikh herein, is

different from the one expressed under the Gurdwara Act of 1925. The

term Sikh is defined by section 2(n) of the Gurdwara Act of 1971 as under:-

“2(n) "Sikh" means a person who professes the Sikh religion,

believes and follows the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib

and the ten gurus only and keeps unshorn hair (Keshas). For the

purposes of this Act, if any question arises as to whether any

living person is or is not a Sikh, he shall be deemed

respectively to be or not to be a Sikh according as he makes or

refuses to make in the manner prescribed by rules the following

declaration:-

"I solemnly affirm that I am a Keshadhari Sikh, that I believe in

and follow the teachings of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the ten

gurus only, and that I have no other religion.”

Unlike the Gurdwara Act of 1925, herein the term Sikh is defined expressly

to include a person who “keeps unshorn hair “keshas”. Just like the

Gurdwara Act of 1925, the terms “amritdhari Sikh” and “patit” are also

sought to be defined by the Gurdwara Act of 1971 through sections 2(o)

and 2(j) respectively. The aforesaid provisions are also being extracted

hereunder:-

“2(o) "Amritdhari Sikh" means and includes every Sikh who

has taken khande ka amrit or khanda pahul, prepared and

administered according to the tenets of Sikh religion and rites at

the hands of five Pyaras or "beloved ones".

2(j) "patit" means a Sikh who trims or shaves his beard or hair

(keshas) or who after taking Amrit commits any one or more of

the four Kurahitis.”

The conclusion on the basis of the provisions extracted hereinabove is

inevitably the same as the one that was drawn by us after examining the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :56:

provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925. Irrespective of the difference in

the definitions, the minimum requirement of an individual to come within

the fold of the Sikh religion in terms of the provisions of the Gurdwara Act

of 1971, may be summarised as to include, firstly, the profession of the

Sikh religion, secondly, the acceptance of the belief in the teachings of the

ten “Sikh gurus”, as also, the Guru Granth Sahib (the embodiment of the ten

“Sikh gurus”), thirdly, to wear unshorn hair, and fourthly, to have

faith/belief in no religion except Sikhism.

52. The Gurdwara Act of 1971 also refers to the elevated stature of

a Sikh as an “amritdhari Sikh” who has taken “khande ka amrit” or

“khande-di-pahul”, in terms of the rituals of Sikh baptism. The term “patit”

is similarly defined herein as in the Gurdwara Act of 1925 i.e. a person who

trims or shaves his beard or hair. Just like the Gurdwara Act of 1925, so

under the Gurdwara Act of 1971, different rights are vested in Sikhs

depending on their level of adherence to the Sikh religion and the rituals

thereof.

53. The qualifications of an elector and of a member of the

committee have been prescribed in sections 8 and 10 of the Gurdwara Act of

1971. The same are also being extracted under: -

“8. Qualifications of elector. Every person who- (a) has been

ordinarily resident in a ward for not less than one hundred and

eighty days during the qualifying period, (b) is a Sikh of not

less than twenty-one years of age on qualifying date, shall, be

entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that ward:

Provided that no person shall be registered as an elector who-

(a) trims or shaves his beard or keshas; (b) smokes; (c) takes

alcoholic drinks. Explanation.-For the purpose of this section,

the "qualifying date" and the "qualifying period"- (i) in the case

of electoral rolls first prepared under this Act, shall be the 1st

day of January, 1972, and the period beginning on the 1st day

of January, 1971 and ending on the 31st day of December,

1971, respectively; and (ii) in the case of every electoral roll

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :57:

subsequently prepared under this Act, shall be the 1st day of

January of the year in which it is prepared and the year

immediately preceding that year respectively.

10. Qualifications of member. (1) A person shall not be

qualified to be chosen or co-opted as a member of the

Committee if such person- (a) has not attained the age of

twenty-five years; (b) is not a citizen of India; (c) in the case of

an elected member, if he is not registered as an elector in the

electoral roll for any ward; (d) is not an Amritdhari Sikh; (e)

being an Amritdhari Sikh, trims or shaves his beard or keshas;

(f) takes alcoholic drinks; (g) smokes; (h) is a patit; (i) is of

unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court; (j)

is an undischarged insolvent; (k) has been convicted of an

offence involving moral turpitude or has been dismissed from

service by Government, Board, Committee or any local

authority, on account of moral turpitude; (l) is a paid servant of

any Gurdwara or a local Gurdwara; (m) not being a blind

person cannot read and write Gurmukhi. Explanation.-A person

shall be deemed to- (i) be able to read Gurmukhi if he is able to

recite Sri Guru Granth Sahib, in Gurmukhi, and (ii) write

Gurmukhi if he fills his nomination paper for election to the

Committee in Gurmukhi in his own handwriting. If any

question arises whether a candidate is or is not able to read an

write Gurmukhi, the question shall be decided in such manner

as may be prescribed by rules.

(2) If a person sits or votes as a member of the Committee

when he knows that he is not qualified for such membership, he

shall be liable in respect of each day on which he so sits or

votes to a penalty of three hundred rupees which shall be

recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.”

A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that a lesser qualification is

stipulated for an elector i.e. a person who falls within the definition of the

term Sikh, under the Gurdwara Act of 1971, with a further qualification

that he does not trim or shave his beard or hair. A higher qualification has

been laid down for being eligible to be elected as a member of the Delhi

Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee. For eligibility to contest an

election for membership of the said Managing Committee, the person

concerned must be an “amritdhari Sikh” i.e. the highest level of attainment

for a Sikh in the religious hierarchy depicted under the Gurdwara Act of

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :58:

1971.

54. Our final conclusion and analysis of the provisions of the

Gurdwara Act of 1971, are similar to those that have been expressed by us

while interpreting the provisions of the Gurdwara Act of 1925, namely, that

the term Sikh as defined under the Gurdwara Act of 1971, is limited to the

object and purpose of the Gurdwara Act of 1971, namely, for vesting the

responsibility for the proper management of “Sikh gurdwaras” and

“gurdwara property” in territories of Delhi. Under the instant legislative

enactment also, a Sikh is one who essentially wears his hair unshorn.

The Sikh rehat-maryada.

55. Professor W.H. McLeod is emeritus Professor in the University

of Otago Dunedin, New Zealand. He is known to have spent a life time

conducting research into religious studies specially on Sikhism, Indian

history and sociology. His publications includes Historical Dictionary of

Sikhism (published in 1995, by the Scarecrow Press), Exploring Sikhism -

Aspect of Sikh Identity, Culture and Thought (published in 2000, by Oxford

University Press), Sikhs of the Khalsa – a history of the Khalsa “rahit”

(published in 2003 by Oxford University Press). The word “rahit”,

according to Professor W.H. McLeod means the code of belief and conduct

which are required to be obeyed. And the term “Rahitnama” means the

manual of the “rahit” principles. According to Professor W.H. McLeod, for

more than three centuries, most Sikhs have regarded the “rahit” as

absolutely the centre of their faith. Guru Gobind Singh had imparted the

“rahit” when he inaugurated the Khalsa order. According to the author,

Sikhs have remained largely unaware of the existence of the “rehit” despite

the fact that the author duly recognises that Guru Gobind Singh had directed

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :59:

his followers to observe the prescribed code of conduct described in the

“rehat-maryada”. Generally, according to the author, Sikhs are aware of the

“rahitnama” as the five ordained “kakkars” (articles of faith) or “Ks”.

56. According to the “Encyclopaedia of Sikhism” by Dr. H.S.

Singha (second edition published in 2005 by Hemkunt Publishers (P) Ltd.),

Guru Gobind Singh, the last of the ten “gurus” of the Sikhs had laid down a

strict code of conduct for the Sikhs in 1699, at the time of setting up of the

Khalsa Panth. The precise form of the “Sikh rehat-maryada” as ordained by

the “Guru” has remained a matter of debate. Various codes of conduct

dating from the 18th century are in existence with somewhat different

interpretations. The “Sikh rehat-maryada” from the “rahitnamas” is stated

to have been dictated by Guru Gobind Singh himself. Kahan Singh,

another prominently recognized author of the Sikh religion, has referred to

the existence of three “rehat-maryadas”, namely, Tankhanama, Prashan

Uttar of Bhai Nand Lal and Rahitnama of Bhai Desa Singh based on their

dialogue with the "Guru". Among the other important Rahitnamas are those

by Chaupa Singh and Perhlad Singh. All these codes reflect the general

spirit of the consolidation of Sikhism, in the post Guru Gobind Singh era.

The SGPC worked on the “ Sikh rehat-maryada” and eventually in 1945, the

SGPC was able to produce an acceptable code of conduct called “rahitmaryada”.

It lays down the norms of Sikh behaviour and conduct.

57. The code of conduct and conventions for Sikhs formulated by

the SGPC as the “Sikh rehat-maryada” defines the term Sikh as under: --

“Any human being who faithfully believes in

(i) One immortal Being.

(ii) Ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Guru Gobind Singh.

(iii) The Guru Granth Sahib.

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :60:

(iv) The utterance and teachings of the ten Gurus and

(v) The baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru and who does

not owe allegiance to any other religion, is a Sikh.”

The “rehat-maryada” has been described as the code of a “Sikh’s personal

life” (in Chapter III of the Sikh rehat-maryada, published by the SGPC), and

as the “Code of Corporate” or “Panthic Code of Conduct” of a Sikh (in

Chapter XIII of the Sikh rehat-maryada published by the SGPC). Certain

important references to the subject matter, namely, the significance of

“kasha/keshas” are also recorded in Chapter X of the Sikh rehat-maryada,

published by the SGPC. A collective perusal of the Sikh rehat-maryada

reveals, that a Sikh should have on his person at all the time five “kakkars”

(articles of faith) or Ks; the “keshas” (unshorn hair), the “kirpan” (sword),

the “kachhera” (knicker bockers), the “kangha” (comb) and the “karha”

(steel bracelet). The “Sikh rehat-maryada” also lists the tabooed practices in

Chapter XIII of the “Sikh rehat-maryada”. The same are extracted

hereunder:-

“The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices)

must be avoided:

(1) Dishonouring the hair;

(2) Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way;

(3) Cohabiting with a person other than one’s spouse;

(4) Using tobacco.”

While referring to the “tabooed practices”, the first in the list depicted in the

“Sikh rehat-maryada” is “dishonouring hair”. The code of Sikh conduct and

conventions mandates, that in the event of commission of any “tabooed

practice”, the transgressor must get “rebaptised”. In case of the commission

of a transgression of any specified discipline, the concerned person must

present himself before the Sikh congregation, and seek forgiveness, and

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :61:

accept whatever punishment is awarded. In Chapter XIII of the “Sikh rehatmaryada”,

an act of dyeing hair is also considered as a transgression,

accordingly a severe action is prescribed for the same, which is extracted

hereunder:-

“(q) The following individuals shall be liable to chastisement

involving automatic boycott:

xx xx xx xx

(3) One who dyes his beard;”

Therefore, a person who dyes his beard is also considered to have

committed a “tabooed practice” of dishonouring hair. Not only that a Sikh

is not permitted to harbor any antipathy to hair of the head with which his

child is born, he is also under a command not to tamper with hair with

which his child is born. To substantiate the aforesaid, relevant extracts of

Article XVI under Chapter X are extracted hereunder:-

“Chapter X

Living in consonance with Guru’s tenets.

Article XVI.

A Sikh’s living, earning livelihood, thinking and conduct

should accord with the Guru’s tenets. The Guru’s tenets are:

(d) Not believing in cast or descent, untouchability, magic,

spells, incantation, omens, auspicious times, days and

occasions, influence of stars, horoscopic dispositions, shradh

(ritual serving of food to priests for the salvation of ancestors

on appointed days as per the lunar calendar), ancestor worship,

khiah (ritual serving of food to priests-Brahimns – on the luna

anniversaries of the death of an ancestor), pind (offering of

funeral barley cakes to the deceased’s relatives), patal (ritual

donating of food in the belief that that would satisfy the hunger

of a departed soul), diva (the ceremony of keeping an oil lamp

lit for 360 days after the death, in the belief that that lights the

path of the deceased), ritual funeral acts, hom (lighting of ritual

fire and pouring intermittently clarified butter, foodgrains etc.

into it for propitiating gods for the fulfillment of purpose), jag

(religious ceremony involving presentation of oblations), tarpan

(libation), sikha-sut (keeping a tuft of hair on the head and

wearing thread), bhadan (shaving of head on the death of a

parent), fasting on new or full moon or other days, wearing of

frontal marks on the forehead, wearing of thread, wearing of

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :62:

necklace of the pieces of tulsi stalk, veneration of any graves,

of monuments erected to honour the memory of a deceased

person or of cremation sites, idolatory and such like

superstitions observances.

Not owning up or regarding as hallowed any place other than

the Guru’s place – such, for instance, as sacred spots or places

of pilgrimage of other faiths.

Not believing in or according any authority to Muslim seers,

Brahmins’ holiness, soothsayers, clairvoyants, oracles, promise

of an offering on the fulfillment of a wish, offering of sweet

loaves or rise pudding at graves on fulfillment of wishes, the

Vedas, the Shastras, the Gayatri (Hindu scriptural prayer unto

the sun), the Gita, the Quran, to the Bible etc. However, the

study of the books of other faiths for general self education is

admissible.

(i) A Sikh should, in no way, harbour any antipathy to the hair

of the head with which his child is born. He should not tamper

with the hair with which the child is born. He should add the

suffix “Singh” to the name of his son. A Sikh should keep the

hair of his sons and daughters intact.”

In case of transgression of any of the “tabooed practice” including that

pertaining to “kesh/keshas”, the method of imposing chastisement stipulated

in the “Sikh rehat-maryada” (published by the SGPC) is as under: -

“Method of imposing Chastisement.

(a) Any Sikh who has committed any default in the observance

of the Sikh discipline should approach the nearby Sikh

congregation and make a confession of his lapse standing

before the Congregation.

(b) The congregation should then, in the holy presence of Guru

Grant Sahib, elect from among themselves five beloved ones

who should ponder over the suppliant's fault and propose the

chastisement (punishment) for it.

(c) The congregation should not take an obdurate stand in

granting pardon. Nor should the defaulter argue about the

chastisement. The punishment that is imposed should be some

kind of service, especially some service that can be performed

with hands.

(d) And finally an Ardas for correction should be performed.”

It is quite apparent from the “Sikh rehat-maryada” also, that unshorn hair

not only is a mandate to a person who professes Sikhism, it is also a

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :63:

command to him to adopt the same practice for his child as well.

The Sikh Ardas.

58. The “Sikh ardas” is the ritual prayer, which Sikhs individually

or in congregation recite, morning and evening, and in fact, whenever they

perform a religious service, and even at the beginning of all family, public

or religious functions. The word “ardas” in Persian means, a

petition/memorial/address to a superior authority. The “Sikh ardas” is made

to God. It is an evolute of the community’s heart in prayer over the

centuries. Broadly, the “Sikh ardas” consists of three parts. When early in

the 18th century, Sikhs were outlawed by a royal edict, they faced violent

death wherever sighted. In their places of refuge in jungles and deserts,

they prayed collectively or severally, seeking God’s protection for the entire

Khalsa, whosoever and wheresoever. The “Sikh ardas” enshrines in its text

the community’s aspirations at various periods of its history, and enables

the devotees to unite in a brotherhood of the faith, over the centuries,

transcending time. The “Sikh ardas” seeks protection against evils like lust,

wrath, greed, attachment and pride. It incorporates words of thanks giving,

and also seeks God’s blessings.

59. It will be expedient to reproduce here the “Sikh ardas”. In the

left hand column, we have extracted the “ardas” in “Gurmukhi” script

(written in the English script), in the right hand column, we have extracted

the English translation thereof: -

- Ek ong kaar waheguru ji

ki fateh

1, O formless-form to waheguru, the abiding

victory!

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :64:

- Siri Bhagauti ji sahai,

Var Siri Bhagauti ji ki

paatshahi dasveen

May divine spirit help ballad (Var) Shri

bhagauti composition of tenth king!

Pirtham Bhagauti simmar

kai Gur Nanak laleen

dhiae!

To begin with, invoke the divine spirit of

waheguru and remember Guru Nanak!

- Phir Angad Gur te

Amardas Ramdasai hoieen

sahai!

(This spirit) which then inspired Guru Angad

(Dev) Amar Dass and Ram Dass.

- Arjan Hargobind noon

simrau Siri Har Rai!

Call upon, Arjan, Hargobind and reverred Har

Rai

- Siri Harkrishan dhiaeeai

jis dithe sabh dukh Jaie!

Invoke the blessed Sri Harkrishan whose

vision heals all pains!

- Teg Bahadur simriye

ghar nau nidh awai dhaai.

sab thaaeen hoi sahai!

Call upon Teg Bahadur so that the kingdom of

heaven may come to earth (nine treasures of

life). May waheguru and the gurus assist us

everywhere!

- Daswan patshan Siri

Guru Gobind Singh Sahib

ji, sabh thaaeen hoai

sahai!

Tenth king reverred Guru Gobind Singh. May

he help us everywhere!

- Dasan patshanian di jot

Siri Guru Grant Sahib ji

de path didar da dheyan

dhar ke bolo waheguru!

The spirit of all the ten Kings enshrined in the

visible body and the word of the Guru Granth,

concentrate on that and say, sires, the

congregation: waheguru!

- Panj piarian, chohan

sahibzadian, chahlian

muktian, hathian, jappian,

tapian, jinhan nam jappia

wand chhakia deg chalai

teg wahi dekh ke undith

keetaa tinnha piarian

sachiarian di kamaaee da

dhiaan dhar ke khalsa ji

bolo ji waheguru!

Five beloved ones, four princes, forty

redeemed ones, those who have remained

steadfast in suffering, those who kept constant

remembrance of waheguru! Those who

renounced the sensuous pleasures, those who

have constantly live in the divine presence,

shared earnings expressed magnanimity, have

preserved in their fight in the cause of justice,

turned a blind eye to the faults and failings of

others and did not falter. Concentrate your

minds on the struggles and achievements of

those, O, reverred members of the order of the

khalsa, and say, waheguru!

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :65:

- Jinhan singhan

singhanian dharam hait

saees ditte, band band

katae, khoprian luhaian,

charkhian te charhe,

aarian nal chiraae gae,

gurdwarian de seva laee

kurbanian kithian, dharam

naheen hariaa, sikhi kesan

suasan naal nibhahee,

tinnhaan dee kamaaee da

dhiaan dhar ke khalsa ji

bolo ji waheguru!

The Singhs of both the sexes who courted

martyrdom in the cause of region and

underwent unspeakable sufferings of being

dismembered alive, scalped alive, broken on

the wheels, sawed alive and boiled alive and

those who made sacrifices in the service of the

centres of the Sikh religion the gurdwaras, but

never wavered in their faith and to remain

steadfast in the cause of Sikhism with the hair

of their body and to their last breath. O,

reverred members of the khalsa order,

concentrate your minds on the glorious deeds

of those, and utter, glory to waheguru.

- Panjan takhtan sarbatt

gurdwarian da dhian dhar

ke khalsa ji bolo ji

waheguru!

Think of the five seats of authority, the thrones

of the religion and all gurdwaras and say

waheguru!! waheguru!

Prithman sarbatt khalsa ji

ki ardass hai ji, sarbatt

khalsa ji ko waheguru

waheguru waheguru chitt

aawai. chitt aawan kaa

sadkaa sarab sukh howai,

jahaan jahaan khalsa ji

sahib tahaan tahaan

rachhiaa riaayat, deg teg

fateh, bird kee paij, panth

ki jeet, siri saheb ji

sahaae, khalsa ji ke bol

baale, bolo ji waheguru!

First the prayer of the whole khalsa is, may the

presence of waheguru be progressively felt in

the hearts of all the khalsa and may the whole

creation become happy and prosperous

thereby. May the supplies of the khalsa ever

remained replenished , may the sword of the

khalsa be ever victorious, may the royal title of

the khalsa be universally recognised and

honoured. May victory attend upon all just

endeavours of the panth, the khalsa

commonwealth, may waheguru's might (sri

sahib) be our constantly May the order of the

khalsa achieve ever expanding progress and

supremacy. Say waheguru!!waheguru!

-Sikhan noon sikhi daan,

kes daan, rehit daan,

bibaik daan, visah daan,

bharosa daan, daaan sir

daan nam daan, siri

Amritsar ji de ishnaan,

chowkian, jhande, bunge,

jugo jug attal dharam ka

jaikaar bolo ji waheguru!

Grants to Sikhs: the gift of faith, the gift of

uncut hair, the gift of discipline, the gift of

knowledge, the gift of mutual trust, the gift of

self-confidence and the supreme gift of all

gifts, the gift of communion with waheguru.

May Sikhs freely centre around and dip in the

holy lake of Amritsar. Sikh concerts, the

banners, dwellinghouses ever remain inviolate.

May the cause of truth and justice prevail

everywhere and at all times. Sires, utter

waheguru!

- Sikha daa man neevan,

matt uchee, matt daa

rakha aap waheguru!

May the passions in the minds of the Sikhs

remain calm and the reason flow clear and may

the reason always be guided by the light of

waheguru!

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :66:

-- Hae akal purkh aapne

panth de sadaa sahaaee

dataar jeeo, siri Nankana

Sahib te hor gurdwarian

gurdhaman de jinhan ton

panth noon vichhoria giaa

hai, khulhe dharshan

deedar te sewa sambhaal

daa daan khalsa ji noon

baksho!

O, Almighty, protector and helper ever of the

panth, restore to us the right and privilege of

unhindered management and the service of

anaccess to Nanakana Sahib and other centres

of the Sikh religion, the gurdwaras, out of

which we have been forcibly evicted.

He nimanian de maan,

nitaniaann de taan,

niotiaan di ot, sachhe

pittaa waheguru, aap de

hazoor ardass hai jee!

O, true father of all Lord, waheguru here is a

prayer prayer.

Akhar wadhaa ghaata bhul

chukk maaf karnee.

sarbatt de kaaraj raas

karne, saiee piaare mail

jinhan miliaan tera naam

chitt aawe!

Grant us the company of those who may help

keep thy name fresh in our hearts. For give us

our remissnesses, extend thy helping hand to

all and everyone.

Nanak naam charhdi

kalaa, tere bhane sarbatt

daa bhalaa!

May the name, the religion preached by Nanak

prevail and prosper, for ever and for ever, may

thy will be done wherein lies the good of all.

Waheguru ji ka khalsa,

waheguru ji ki fateh.

The khalsa is of waheguru and to waheguru the

victory.

60. Insofar as the issue of “kesha/keshas” is concerned, the “Sikh

ardas” makes a reference to the same at two places. Firstly, the “Sikh ardas”

ordains that a Sikh should “never waver in his faith, and that he should

remain steadfast in the cause of Sikhism with his bodily hair intact to his

last breath”. The instant stanza signifies the stature of bodily hair in Sikh

mythology. Likewise, reference may be made to another stanza in the “Sikh

ardas” wherein various grants are sought from the Almighty. In its

translation, this aspect reads thus, “grant to Sikhs; the gift of faith, the gift

of uncut hair, the gift of discipline, the gift of knowledge, the gift of mutual

trust, the gift of self-confidence and the supreme gift of all gifts, the gift of

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :67:

communion with the Waheguru”. The prayer, therefore, seeks from God the

gift of unshorn hair. A perusal of the two parts of the “ Sikh ardas” referred

to hereinabove reveal, that keeping of unshorn hair is a part of the sacred

prayer made by a Sikh to the God morning and evening, and in fact,

whenever he performs a religious service, and even at the beginning of all

family, public and religious functions. It is a diktat to all Sikhs to retain

their hair unshorn to their last breath. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it

is imperative for us on the basis of the “Sikh ardas” to conclude, that

keeping unshorn hair is an essential component of the Sikh religion.

Views expressed by scholars of Sikhism:

61. The Punjabi University, Patiala, has an independent

Department of Religion devoted to the study of six world religions –

Hinduism, Budhism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism and Jainism. It was set up

on the lines of the centre for the study of world religions at the Howard

University. One of the studies undertaken was a comprehensive reference

work about Sikhism. The eventual compilation is in four volumes described

as the Encyclopaedia of Sikhism (published by the Punjabi University,

Patiala) Interestingly it acknowledges that on the subject of Sikhism, there

were no concisely written works, and even historical facts were not well

sifted, and further, there was even a paucity of reliable and firm

documentation. These assertions recorded in the preface itself, are on

account of contradictions on the same subject by different authors. The

work of compilation of the aforesaid encyclopedia, which commenced in the

sixties, was eventually concluded in the nineties i.e. after a period of three

decades. In the “Encyclopedia of Sikhism” (the editorial committee whereof

comprised of individuals belonging to the Sikh faith) have dealt with the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :68:

aspect of “kesh/keshas” extensively. On the word “keshadhari” (a person

who wears his/her hair unshorn), the encyclopedia records as under :-

“Keshadhari a term defining a Sikh as one who carries on his

head the full growth of his kes (hair) which he never trims or

cuts for any reason. Anyone, Sikh or non-Sikh, may keep their

hair unshorn, but for a Sikh kes, unshorn hair is an article of

faith and an inviolable vow. The Sikh Rahit Maryada

published by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee,

statutory body for the control and management of Sikh shrines

and by extension for laying down rules about Sikh beliefs and

practices, issued in 1945, after long and minute deliberations

among Sikh scholars and theologians, defines a Sikh thus:

Every Sikh who has been admitted to the rites of amrit,

i.e. who has been initiated as a Sikh, must allow his hair

to grow its full-length. This also applies to those born of

Sikh families but who have not yet received the rites of

amrit of the 10th master, Guru Gobind Singh.

All codes and manuals defining Sikh conduct are unanimous in

saying that uncut hair is obligatory for every Sikh . One of

them Bhai Chaupa Singh’s records, “the guru’s Sikh must

protect the hair, Comb it morning and evening and wash it with

the curd. And he must not touch it with unclean hands.”

Bhai Nand Lal quotes guru Gobind Singh:-

My Sikh shall not use the razor. For him the use of razor

or shaving the chin shall be as sinful as incest… For the

Khalsa such a symbol is prescribed so that a Sikh cannot

remain undistinguishable from among a hundred

thousand Hindus or Muslims; because how can he hide

himself with hair and turban on his head and with a

flowing beard?

Bhai Desa Singh in his Rahitnama imparts a theological edge

to his statement: --

God created the whole universe and then he fashioned

the human body. He gave men beard, moustaches and

hair on the head. He who submits to His Will steadfastly

adheres to them. They who deny His Will how will they

find God in this world?

Trimming or shaving is forbidden the Sikh and constitutes for

them the direst apostasy. The truest wish of a true Sikh is to

be able “to preserve the hair on his head to his last breath.”

This was the Ernest prayer arising out of Sikh hearts in the days

of cruel persecution in the 18th century when to be a Sikh

meant to be under the penalty of death. The example is cited

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :69:

from those dark days of Bhai Taru Singh, the martyr, who

disdainfully spurned all tempting offers of the Mughal

persecutor if only he would convert to Islam:

“How do I fear for my life? Why must I becomes a

Musalman? Don’t Musalmans die? Why should I abandon

my faith? May my faith endure until my last hair – until my

last breath,” said Taru Singh.

The Nawab tried to tempt him with offers of lands and wealth.

When he found Taru Singh inflexible, he decided to have his

scalp scrapped from his head. The barbers came with sharp

lancets and slowly ripped Bhai Taru Singh’s skull. He

rejoiced that the hair of his head was still intact.

The importance of kes (Sikh’s unshorn hair) has been

repeatedly demonstrated to them during their history. The hair

has been their guarantee for self preservation. Even more

importantly, the prescription has a meaning for them far

transcending the mundane frame of history.

A term which has had parallel usage in the Sikh system is

Sehjdhari. A Sehjdhari is not a full Sikh, but one on his way to

becoming one. He is in the guru’s path, but has not yet adopted

the full regalia of the faith. He fully subscribes to the

philosophy of the gurus; he does not own and believe in any

other guru or deity. His worship is the Sikh worship; only he

has not yet adopted the full style of a Singh. Since he

subscribed to no other form of worship or belief than the one

prescribed for Sikhs, a concession was extended to him to call

himself a Sikh – a Sehjdhari Sikh, a gradualist holders

gradually tread the path and eventually become a full-grown

Khalsa……”

The aforesaid pronouncements of the meaning of the word “keshadhari” in

reference to Sikhs, leaves no ambiguity in the matter. It holds that a Sikh is

one who maintains a full growth of hair and wears his hair unshorn. This

tenet is applicable even to those born in Sikh families though not formally

baptized. Cutting hair by a Sikh is taken to be a sin. Hair on the human

body are considered as a gift given to man by God, and therefore, to be

preserved.

62. In the Encyclopaedia of Sikhism by Dr. H.S. Singha (second

edition published in 2005 by Hemkunt Publishers (P) Ltd.), under the

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :70:

heading “kesh”, the description and significance of the same for Sikhs, has

been recorded in the following words: -

“Kesh which means hair is one of the five “kakaars” of the

Khalsa brotherhood. One of the injunctions imposed by Guru

Gobind Singh at the time of setting up of Khalsa brotherhood

in 1699 AD was to forbid shaving or trimming of hair on any

part of the body. As such, the long uncut hair and a natural

unspoilt beard in case of men are the most visible features of

Sikh. The practice is one of the most distinctive and cherished

symbols of Sikhism. According to the Sikh tradition, the first

hukamnama that Guru Gobind Singh issued to his followers,

carried into alia, the stipulation: “In future the Sikhs should

come into my presence wearing long hair. Once a Sikh is

baptized, he should never trim his hair or shave them,

“disregarding the guru's injunction is a kurahit which results in

automatic suspension from the Khalsa brotherhood.

Kapur Singh derives the symbolism of kesh from the beauty of

the cosmic man who is an embodiment of the beautiful and the

holy. According to the Adi Granth, the cosmic man has

“beautiful nose and longer uncut hair”

Sohane nak jin lammare wala.

At another point this First Man is said to have “unshaved

untrimmed body with a turban on head”…….sabat soorat

dastar sira. This injunction of not shaving or trimming the hair

is also a reaction to Hindu observance of tonsure.

Sikh aesthetics even disapprove of the dying of hair which

makes a person look different from what he or she is.”

The narration by Dr. H.S. Singha reveals, that the prescription of unshorn

hair was the diktat of Guru Gobind Singh even at the time of baptism of the

“panj pyaras” (the five beloved ones) at Anandpur Sahib in 1699. The

disobedience of the diktat would result in the automatic suspension of a

Sikh from the faith. The importance of a Sikh to retain hair unshorn,

according to the author, cannot be undermined.

63. Professor Pritam Singh, formerly Head of the Department of

Guru Nanak Studies, Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, was invited to

deliver a lecture at the South Asia Institute of Heidelberg University, West

Germany, in 1985. One of the lectures was on “Consciousness of Sikh

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :71:

Identity” (contained in his book titled as “Exploring Some Sikh Themes” –

first edition published in November, 2006 by Singh Brothers, Amritsar).

The aforesaid lecture contains a historical fact. It is difficult to assert with

any kind of authenticity, whether or not, the same is a matter of myth or

belief of the Sikhs. All the same, according to the author Professor Pritam

Singh, the introduction of unshorn hair as a mandate for Sikhs emerges from

the capture, and thereafter, killing of Guru Gobind Singh’s father Guru Teg

Bahadur – the ninth “Sikh guru”. The same reads as under: -

“…members of the Sikh community carry their badge of

identity so naturally and so permanently on their persons that it

is not difficult to identify them even in a crowd. Apostates

apart, it is never very easy for a Sikh to conceal the fact of his

being a Sikh even when there is danger to his life. The Sikh

has been carrying his hirsute and turbaned identity on his

person since 1699 when Guru Gobind Singh, the 10th Guru,

introduced in his new baptismal ceremony in which the ,nectar’

stirred with a double edged sword is served provided the novice

promises to abide strictly by certain conditions. One obligatory

condition is that the natural growth of body hair is not to be

interfered with. This is no provision to recount all the

interpretations of the hair symbol, adumbrated by Sikh and

non-Sikhs scholars, but I certainly feel like the rating a popular

explanation available in almost all books on the subject. It tries

to unfold the rationale underlying the guru’s command.

When Guru Tegh Bahadur, Guru Gobind Singh’s father and

ninth guru of the Sikhs, was made a captive and was being

pressurized to embrace Islam, three of his companions were

tortured to death to break his will – Bhai Mati Das was sawn

alive, Bhai Diala was boiled alive, and Bhai Sati Das was put

to the sword. When the guru did not relent, he was beheaded in

the main marketplace of Delhi and his severed head and body

were left there, like the bodies of his Sikhs, to be defiled by

dogs and vultures. Stunned with fear, no Delhi Sikh came

forward to claim the guru’s body, although their number in

Delhi at that time was not negligible. A sudden storm, which is

said to have enveloped Delhi with darkness, provided excellent

opportunity to a Sikh pedlar who took away the body under

cover of darkness to his own residence, only a few miles from

the bloody scene. He sat in his house ablaze, as he did not

regard it expedient to arrange a formal cremation for the body.

The guru’s head was similarly picked up by a Sikh sweeper

who carried it posthaste to Anandpur where the guru’s son and

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :72:

successor was then residing. The Sikh, while presenting the

head of the nine-year old guru, gave a graphic account of the

paralyzing terror that had struck everyone, including the Sikhs,

who had disappeared from the public view for fear of

implication. It was there and then that the young guru pledged

to see that no Sikh in future would be able to hide his identity,

howsoever fearsome the circumstances. And this promise he

fulfilled when deciding to create from the old ‘Sikh’ human

material, the new ‘Singh’ (Lion) category of men; he made kes,

uncut hair, the faster mark of identification of his followers.

From statements ascribed to Guru Gobind Singh and from his

actions and the statements of others available in the

contemporary or near contemporary literature, it is evident that

the guru was trying to make the separate existence of the Sikh

community and its faith more distinct than before. His purpose

was to highlight the independent nature of Sikhism in the

context of other contemporary religions. By doing this, he

wanted to insure the desired quality of the individual and

collective conduct of his ‘Khalsa’, the new name for his Sikhs.

His insistence on a distinct and unadulterated Khalsa can be

understood as the wish of a creator who desires to guard his

creation against all vulgarization. I quote from a recent

publication:

“Guru Gobind Singh had actually warned the Sikh

people not to let the purity of the Sikh faith and the

distinctiveness of the Khalsa Panth be confused,

particularly in view of the closeness of Sikhism to

Hinduism, thus: ‘as long as the Khalsa Panth retained the

distinctiveness of its ideals, I will bless it with power and

glory. But when it follows the way of the Brahmins

(castes, etc.), I will not trust it.”

Circumstantial evidence provides the key to the guru’s extreme

mistrust of Brahmins, so evident in the quotation cited just

now. When Guru Gobind Singh took charge of the community,

the boundary line between Sikhs and Hindus seemed to have

become a little blurred. The following incident occurs in Sri

Gur Sobha by Sainapati, a devout Sikh, close to the guru. His

book was completed only two years after the demise of the

guru. The children of the deceased Delhi Sikh did not shave off

their hair as they had accepted the new deal of Guru Gobind

Singh. The Hindu custom required close cropping of the head

at such occasions. The non-cropper were subjected to severe

social boycott and a general strike was observed by Delhi

shopkeepers to protest against the violation of tradition and

customs. Such segregation of the newly baptized Khalsa by

non baptized Sikhs shows that prior to the new Deal, some

Sikhs were also observing traditional Hindu religious customs

probably because they were allowed to graduate to Sikhism at a

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :73:

steady pace. Whatever the reason, the prevalence of such a

situation is confirmed by an equally reliable authority of earlier

date...”

Reference needs to be made also to the following observations recorded by

Professor Pritam Singh, wherein according to the author, the primary

distinguishing feature between an individual following the Sikh religion and

another following the Hindu religion is, that the former wears his hair

unshorn, and in case, his hair are shorn, he is considered to fall in the latter

category i.e. Hindu religion:-

“The interesting fact that has to be noted is that whenever there

has been a spurt of resurgence during the post Guru Gobind

Singh period of Sikh history, it has turned out to be a renewed

effort on the part of Sikhs to purge the community of

Brahiminical influences, whose infiltrating capacity is wellknown,

especially in the cases of religions of Indian origin,

because some of their theological vocables and concepts

happen to overlap. Generally speaking, the social

psychological difference among Muslims and Sikhs were so

marked during the mediaeval period that the Sikhs had no fear

of wholesale absorption from that side, but there was so much

social kinship between Hindus and Sikhs that the Sikh minority

often felt the threat of submersion in the religious majority.

Even today, anyone who cuts of his hair is automatically

considered to have relapsed into the Hindu mass. It is in this

context that repeated attempts of the Sikh community at selfpreservation

or self-assertion, whatever one may call these,

have to be understood. I am referring to such protestant

movements among the Sikhs as the Nirankari Movement of

Baba Dayal (1783-1855), the Namdhari Movement of Baba

Ram Singh (1815-1885), the Singh Sabha Movement (1873),

and the Gurdwara Reform or Akali Movement (1920-25).”

64. Whilst the authors from whose works references have been

made hereinabove were all Sikh scholars, it would also be interesting to

examine the views of a non-Sikh scholar of Indian origin. It is, therefore,

that reference is being made to the book titled “The Sikh World – An

Encyclopedic Survey of Sikh Religion and Culture” by Ramesh Chander

Dogra and Urmil Dogra (first published in 2003, by UBS Publishers'

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :74:

Distributors Pvt. Ltd.). Ramesh Chander Dogra (one of the authors of the

book) is a scholar on the subject of Sikhism. He received his M.Phil degree

at the University of London and has written 11 books and 25 articles,

particularly in the fields of Indology and Sikhism etc.. He retired as

Librarian (South Asian Studies) at the School of Oriental and African

Studies, University of London in 2002. In January 2003, the new year’s

honour list included his name for the award of MBE (Member of the Order

of the British Empire). In his aforestated book “The Sikh World – An

Encyclopaedia – Survey of Sikh Religion and Culture, he has made

references to the term “kesh/kesha”. He has recorded the following

significance thereof in reference to the Sikh faith: -

“Kes/Kesh (hair) is an important part of the human body. The

Khalsa must keep to the hair intact and clean. It has been

regarded as a symbol of saintliness or holiness. All the gurus

kept hair and Guru Gobind Singh laid down an injunction

against the removal or cutting of hair. According to scientific

research, hair produces Vitamin D which is necessary for

physical being. Secondly, by preserving the hair, the energy

used in cutting and natural growing again is thus saved.

Hair protects the head from heat in summer and cold in winter.

The main reason for maintaining hair is the need to look like

Guru Gobind Singh, to be blessed with his appearance and

outlook. Guru Gobind Singh said: “Khalsa is my special form;

I live in the Khalsa”. So if someone wants to be like the guru,

he must adopt his uniform of the five Ks of which kesh

(unshorn hair) is an essential part.”

Incidentally, Keshgarh Sahib presently the abode of a revered “Sikh

gurdwara” also finds mention in his work. For Keshgarh Sahib, the author’s

description is as under: -

“Kesgarh Sahib: Literally, Kesgarh means ‘the fort of hair’.

This is the shrine where Guru Gobind Rai created the Khalsa.

On 30 March, 1699, Guru Gobind Rai gave a call to Sikhs in a

huge congregation, asking them to come forward to sacrifice

their lives for fighting against tyranny and injustice. Five Sikhs

responded to his call, and were given the new baptism –

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :75:

Khande-di-pahul. They were called the Panj-Piyara (Beloved

Five) and received amrit from the hands of the 10th Master.

Thereafter, the guru himself begged of them to administer amrit

to him in the same manner as he had done. After taking amrit,

his name was changed from Govind Rai to Govind Singh.

There is a magnificent Gurdwara built on raised ground at this

spot called Kesgarh Sahib; there is also a tank nearby. The

shrine contains several weapons of Guru Gobind Singh. The

guru built four forts – Anandgarh, Lohgarh, Kesgarh and

Fatehgarh for the protection of the city of Anandpur. An

annual fair is held at Takht Kesgarh Sahib on Baisakhi day.

In 1978, the Khalsa Panth assembled at Anandpur Sahib and

passed the famous resolution which demands a greater measure

of autonomy for the Punjab, and they truly federal constitution

for the whole of India, in place of the present centralization of

power.”

Keshgarh Sahib was the Gurdwara where “khande ka amrit” or “khande-dipahul”

was administered to five Sikhs by Guru Gobind Singh for the first

time. It is at that juncture that the term Khalsa originated. The significance

of the term “kesh/kesha” can be measured from the fact that the place of

birth of the Khalsa was named as Keshgarh Sahib – “Fort of hair”.

65. In his “History of the Sikhs” authored by Hari Ram Gupta

(published in 1994, by Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt. Ltd.) in five

volumes, deals with all aspects – religious, philosophical, political, military,

social, economic and cultural. Professor Hari Ram Gupta had his education

at Lahore. He was a lecturer at Forman Christian College, Lahore, Founder

Principal of Vaish College, Bhiwani and Head of the Department of History

of Aitchson College, Lahore. He served as Professor and Head of

Department of History and Dean University Instruction at the Punjab

University, Chandigarh. Later he worked as honorary Professor in the

Department of History, University of Delhi. As a historian and a scholar not

belonging to the Sikh religion, one would expect an unbiased expression in

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :76:

his narration. Volume I of his work refers to the formula of five into five,

which is as under: -

“The formula of five into five.

For the guidance of his Singhs, Guru Gobind Singh described a

formula consisting of five principles each governed by five

rules. The five principles were: five beliefs, five symbols, five

vows, five deliverances and five rules of conduct.

1. Five beliefs: The Khalsa were enjoined to have five fold

belief in God (Akalpurkh), Guru, Granth, Greeting – Wah Guru

Ki ka Khalsa, Wah Guru ji ki Fatah, and Guru Nanak’s Japji.

2. Five symbols: In those days Hindus of respectable

families wore five ornaments: gold earrings, a necklace, gold or

silver bangles, fingering and a waist belt of gold or silver or a

tagri. The wearer felt proud of displaying his social position.

At the same time he ran the risk of losing these articles as well

as his life into the bargain.

Guru Gobind Singh provided to his followers five jewels which

were within reach of everybody down to the poorest peasant

and the lowest labourer. Instead of creating fear in the mind of

the wearer, his five jewels made his Singh bold, brave and aweinspiring.

These jewels were kesh or long hair, kangha or

comb, kirpan or dagger, kara or steel bracelet and kachha or a

pair of knickerbockers. These symbols gave the Khalsa a

semblance of unity, closed brotherhood and equality. They

developed group consciousness. Guru Gobind Singh gave the

Khalsa a new uniform. This was the spiritual uniform which at

once lifted one to the realm divine. Besides the Guru wanted

his followers not to be able to hide their identity and face

danger boldly, and to remain united in close affinity.

Bhai Nand Lal wrote:-

These five letters of K are emblems of Sikhism. These five are

most incumbent,

Steel bangle, big knife,shorts and a comb;

Without unshorn hair the other four are of no significance.

The Bhai further recorded:

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :77:

(A Sikh who wears a cap will be a leper in seven births).

Several arguments are advanced in favour of unshorn hair,

beards and moustaches:

1. That it was a general practice with the Hindu sages and

ascetics and Kshatriya Princess to keep long hair tied in a knot

on top and flowing beard, and that Guru Gobind Singh wanted

his disciples, in spite of their being householders, to be karam

yogis or practical saints like Rama, Krishna and Bharata all the

five Pandavas.

2. That the warlike tribesmen of the Northwest Frontier Long

hair though trimmed and that the Guru waged his followers to

have a similarly impressive and alarming appearance.

3. That the Guru adopted the practice of Goddess Durga of

preserving long locks unshorn.

4. That the previous Gurus also Long hair and Guru Gobind

Singh wanted his Singhs to develop like Gurus.

5. The most reasonable explanation is that Guru Gobind

Singh desired to provide his Khalsa a natural military uniform,

the least expensive and most impressive permanent costume.

Besides he deemed it necessary that their heads should be

properly guarded from sword cuts and lathis blows by means of

long hair and turbans very few people at the time would

comprehend fully the meaning and importance of this measure.

It had taken real brain to invent it.

Comb indicated cleanliness and purity. Steel bracelet

developed an iron will and grit , and destroyed of the effects of

misfortune. It was a permanent substitute of rakhri, a thread

tied by sisters on the wrists of brothers, reminding them of their

duty to help and protect them. Similarly the kara served as a

reminder to the Sikhs that they had promised to be true to the

Guru and the Panth and that promise must be kept at all costs.

Dagger depicted power and prestige. Wearing arms was the

privilege and pride of only Kshatriyas and Rajputs. The Khalsa

was lifted to the status of Kshatriya, Rajputs and princes. The

pair of knicker-bockers aimed at agility and frugality. It was

more convenient for fighting than the long dhoti of Hindus and

loose trousers of Muslims. Thus the five symbols of Guru

Gobind Singh gave strength to the body, mind and soul and

developed an integrated personality of the wearer.

3. Five Vows:- The Khalsa were required not to do five

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :78:

things: (a) to shave or cut hair, (b) to smoke, (c) to eat halal

meat of the animal killed in the Muslim style, (d) to wear a cap

and, (e) to worship tombs, Graves and relics of cremation and

cherish superstitions.

4. Five deliverances: Guru Gobind Singh declared the

following five deliverances for his disciples.

(i) Dharam Nash or freedom from previous religious

practices and customs.

(ii) Karam Nash or the obliteration of the past bad deeds.

(iii) Janam Nash or the giving up the family influences

and caste effects. The Guru explained that all the four

into castes had been blended into the Khalsa like the

betel leaf. When mixed with supari (betel nut), katha

(catechu) and chuna (lime), the leaf reddened lips,

strengthened teeth, gave flavour to mouth and added heat

to the body. Individually none of these things could

produce this effect. Similarly the four Hindu castes

when United would change them into a flower

possessing beauty, bloom, fragrance and freshness. All

the castes were blended on a democratic basis in which

all were equal and nobody was higher or lower.

(iv) Sharam Nash or the disappearance of hereditary

professional distinctions, as all the callings like those of

priests, soldiers, traders, weavers, tailors, barbers,

cobblers and sweepers were given equal respect and

status.

(v) Bharam Nash or discarding the rituals prescribed by

previous castes.

5. Five rules of conduct:- Five rules were laid down for the

general observations of the Sikhs:

(i) Before beginning every work or enterprise prayer

should be offered.

(ii) The Sikhs should help one another and serve the

Panth.

(iii) They should practice riding and using arms.

(iv) A Sikh coveting another’s property would go to hell.

(v) Regarding sexual matters the Guru said that his

father Guru Tegh Bahadur had given him these

instructions which should serve as a guide to the Sikhs:

“O son, as long as there is life in thy body, make this thy sacred

duty ever to love thine own life more and more. Approach not

another woman’s couch either by mistake or even in a dream.

Know, that the love of another’s wife is a sharp dagger.

Believe me death entereth the body by making love to

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :79:

another’s wife. They who think it great cleverness to enjoying

another’s wife, shall in the end, die the death of dogs.”

The Guru declared:

Go not ye, even in dream, to the bed of a woman other than

your own wife.”

The formula of five into five repeatedly makes reference to the preservation

of unshorn hair. The restraint from shaving or cutting hair and even

concealment of hair with a cap, was considered as a sin, which would lead

to the life of a leper in the next seven births.

66. We shall now examine the same issue based on the views

expressed by foreign authors/historians, who do not follow the Sikh

religion. Max Arthur Macauliffe in his book “The Sikh Religion – its Gurus,

Sacred Writings and Authors” (first published in 1909 by Low Prince

Publications, Delhi), published in six volumes, is an extensive work on the

Sikh religion. Max Arthur Macauliffe is recognized as an individual who

has carried out extensive research on the Sikh religion. The documentation

at the hands of Max Arthur Macauliffe to state the least, cannot be

considered as biased in any manner. While dealing with the life of Guru

Gobind Singh, Max Arthur Macauliffe made reference to the significance

of hair in terms of the teachings of the tenth “Sikh guru”. It is appropriate to

extract hereunder the views expressed by the author: -

“The guru always held the belief that it would be proper and

advantageous to his Sikhs to wear long hair and otherwise not

alter man’s God-given body and the often broached the subject

to them. On one occasion they replied that, if they wore long

hair, they would be subjected to the banter and annoyance of

both Hindus and Muhammadans. The guru then suggested that

they should wear arms, and be at all times ready to defend

themselves. This advice was adopted.

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :80:

In ancient times the guru said it was the universal custom to

wear one’s natural hair, and he instanced the cases of Ram

Chandar, Krishan, Christ, and Muhammad. ‘Why should hair

grow if God had meant it to be cut off? A child’s hair growth

in the womb’. The guru therefore hoped that his followers

would never be guilty of the sin of shaving or cutting off their

hair, and those who obeyed his injunctions he promised to

consider true members of his faith.”

Referring to the preservation of hair by Sikhs, Max Arthur Macauliffe

noticed the views of Guru Gobind Singh, that Sikhs were ordained to wear

hair unshorn, as the same were the gift of God to man, as he was born.

Interestingly, it suggests that wearing hair unshorn at the hands of Sikhs

would distinguish them from Hindus and Muslims. After the episode

relating to the baptism of five Sikhs at Anandpur Sahib, in 1699, a

supplementary ordinance was issued by Guru Gobind Singh. The same has

been described by Max Arthur Macauliffe in the following words: -

“.....A supplementary ordinance was now issued that if anyone

cut his hair, smoked tobacco, associated with a Muhammadan

woman, or ate the flesh of an animal whose throat had been

jagged with a knife, he must be rebaptised, pay a fine, and

promised not to offend any more: otherwise he must be held to

be excommunicated from the Khalsa.”

67. Having examined works of Sikh authors of Indian Origin, non-

Sikh authors of Indian Origin, as also, of non-Sikh authors of foreign

origin, we are of the view, that it has been unanimously concluded by them,

that wearing hair unshorn is an essential tenet of the Sikh religion. This

view also emerges from the Encyclopedia of Sikhism compiled by the

Department of Religion of the Punjabi University, Patiala. It is also

essential to notice, that no such or similar works were placed before us, on

behalf of the petitioners to show otherwise.

The Guru Granth Sahib.

68. Insofar as, Guru Granth Sahib is concerned, substantial

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :81:

assistance was rendered to us by Dr. M.S. Rahi, Advocate. His Submissions

were the same as are contained in his publication titled as “The Granth as

the Eternal Guru” (first edition published in October 2008, by Singh Legal

Foundation).

69. Guru Nanak Dev, the first "guru" of the Sikhs, was born in

1469. When Guru Nanak Dev appeared on the spiritual scene in India, the

role of a "guru" (teacher/preacher) was fairly well-defined. In Hinduism, a

"guru" was a person who had himself attained spiritual insight, and was in a

position to lead his disciples to discover the same potentialities, within

themselves. The ancient epic of the Ramayana and the Mahabharta

exemplify the position of a “guru”. Similar views are also expressed in

Buddhism and Jainism.

70. Guru Nanak Dev, the first “Sikh guru” gave a new dimension to

the concept of "guru". He did not believe in a human "guru". He also did

not have any personal "guru" of his own. The Sikhs believe that it was his

direct communion with God which resulted in God entrusting him (Guru

Nanak Dev) with his own mission of teaching people, the prayer of God.

Guru Nanak Dev, Sikhs believe, was the medium for spreading the divine

name of God. The nine successors of Guru Nanak Dev reiterated the same

doctrine. In fact, all the ten “ Sikh gurus” crystallised the concept of

“guruship” as an institution. Besides having recorded the “moolmantar”,

947 hymns of Guru Nanak Dev are contained in the Guru Granth Sahib.

Guru Nanak Dev projected the thought, that an individual could realise God

only through a "guru". According to the hymns attributed to Guru Nanak

Dev, God fills the "guru" with himself. And God having manifested himself

in the "guru", the vision of God is transferable to others only through a

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :82:

“guru”. Guru Angad Dev, the second of the ten “Sikh gurus”, was born in

1504. Guru Angad Dev furthered the preachings of Guru Nanak Dev by

emphasising, that the role of a "guru" was to light the path of humanity in

the realisation of God. 63 hymns of Guru Angad Dev are contained in the

Guru Granth Sahib. The third "Sikh guru", Guru Amar Das was born in

1479. He was bestowed with “guruship” at the age of 73. 869 hymns

composed by Guru Amar Das are a part of the Guru Granth Sahib. Guru

Ram Das, the fourth “Sikh guru”, was born in 1534. Guru Ram Das wrote

638 hymns which are included in the Guru Granth Sahib. Guru Arjun Dev

succeeded Guru Amar Das as the fifth “Sikh guru”. He was born in 1563.

Guru Arjun Dev planned to compile the teachings of all the “gurus” and of

some Sufi saints and “bhagats”, whose views were in consonance with the

preachings of Guru Nanak Dev. This compilation was described as the Adi

Granth. Sikhs accepted it as the physical manifestation and the core

principle of Sikhism. Guru Arjun Dev contributed 2312 hymns of his own,

to the Adi Granth. Guru Arjun Dev selected 883 hymns of various Sufi

saints and “bhagats” for inclusion in the Adi Granth. It is believed that after

the compilation of the Adi Granth, it was installed as the “bani-guru”, at a

little higher pedestal, along with the fifth "Sikh guru", Guru Arjun Dev.

This compilation can be treated as the embodiment of first five “Sikh gurus”

resulting in the creation of the Sikh identity. The successive "Sikh guru",

Guru Hargobind was born in 1595, to be followed by the seventh "Sikh

guru", Guru Har Rai, who was born in 1630. They were followed by Guru

Har Krishan, born in 1656 and Guru Teg Bahadur, born in 1621. At the time

of the death of Guru Arjun Dev in 1708, the last of the ten “Sikh gurus”,

Guru Gobind Singh was only nine years old. In 1705, Guru Gobind Singh

C.W.P No.14859 of 2008 :83:

added 115 hymns of the ninth "Sikh guru", Guru Teg Bahadur to the Adi

Granth, but did not add any of his own, even though, he had composed a

very considerable body of literature (which was later on described as a

Dasam Granth). Guru Gobind Singh, the last of the ten “Sikh gurus”,

declared that the Guru Granth Sahib would henceforth be the "guru" of the

Sikhs. It contains teachings of the “gurus”, as were preached by them, in

their 239 years history.

71. CM No.23938 of 2008 was filed in Civil Writ Petition

No.14859 of 2008. Reference is being made to the written arguments

recorded therein for making reference to certain excerpts from the Guru

Granth Sahib. According to Sikh legend, after coming out of the “bein”

(river) on the third day, Guru Nanak observed, that there is neither any