* A Leading Advocate of Punjab and Haryana High Court & Scholar of Sikhism, 1182 Sector 44-B, Chandigarh-160047, India. [Emphasis in the text is ours. -Ed. SR]

The Judgment of the Supreme Court of India, passed in a case titled S.G.P.C. Amritsar versus Shri Som Nath and others, holding "Guru Granth Sahib a Juristic Person" is of great significance and of far reaching consequences. The question whether Guru Granth Sahib could be a "Juristic Person" or not or whether it could be placed on the same pedestal as an idol has been examined by the Hon’ble Judges with an insight of the Sikh religion held:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. P. Misra and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagannadha Rao, while delivering the Judgment, further held:

"That the question raised in this appeal is of far reaching consequences, and is of great significance to one of the major religious followers of this country. The question is: whether "the Guru Granth Sahib" could be treated as a Juristic person or not? If it is, then it can hold and use the gifted properties given to it by its followers out of their love, in charity. This is by creation of an endowment like others for public good, for enhancing the religious fervour, including feeding the poor, etc. Sikhism grew because of the vibrating divinity of Guru Nanakji and the nine succeeding Gurus, and the wealth of all their teachings is contained in ‘Guru Granth Sahib’. The last of the living Gurus was Guru Gobind Singh Ji who recorded the sanctity of "Guru Granth Sahib" and gave it the recognition of a living Guru. Thereafter, it remained not only a sacred book but is reckoned as a living Guru. The deep faith of every earnest follower, when his pure conscience meets the divine under-current emanating from their Guru, produces a feeling of sacrifice and surrender and impels him to part with or gift out his wealth to any charity may be for gurdwaras, dharamshalas, etc. Such parting spiritualises such follower for his spiritual upliftment, peace, tranquillity and enlightens him with resultant love and universalism. Such donors in the past raised number of Gurdwaras. They gave their wealth in trust for its management to the trustees to subserve their desire. They expected trustees to faithfully implement the objectives for which the wealth was entrusted. When selfishness invades any trustee, the core of trust starts leaking out. To stop such leakage, legislature and courts step in. This is what was happening in the absence of any organized management of Gurdwaras when trustees were either mismanaging or attempting to usurp such trusts. The Sikh Gurdwaras and Shrines Act 1922 (VI of 1922) was enacted to meet the situation. It seems, even this failed to satisfy the aspirations of the Sikhs. The main reason being that it did not establish any permanent committee of management for Sikh Gurdwaras and did not provide for the speedy confirmation by judicial sanction of changes already introduced by the reforming party in the management of places of worship. This was replaced by the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 (Punjab Act No. 8 of 1925) under which the present case arises. This Act provided a legal Procedure through which gurdwaras and shrines regarded by Sikhs as essential places of Sikh worship to be effectively and permanently brought under Sikh control and management, so as to make it consistent with the religious following of this community."

Tracing the history of the case, Hon’ble Judges stated that about 56 persons of Villages Bilaspur, Ghodani, Dhamot, Lapran and Buani, situated in District Patiala, moved petition under Section 7(1) of the said Act for declaration that the disputed property is a Sikh Gurdwara. The State Government through Notification No. 1702 - G.P. dated 14th September, 1962 published the aforesaid petition in the Gazette, including the boundaries of the said gurdwaras which were to be declared as Sikh Gurdwaras. Thereafter, a composite petition under Section 8 and 10 of the said Act was filed by Som Dass, son of Bhagat Ram, Sant Ram, son of Narain Dass, and Anant Ram, son of Sham Dass, of Village Billaspur, District Patiala, challenging the same. They claimed it to be a dharamshala and Dera of Udasian being owned and managed by the petitioners and their predecessors since the time of their forefathers and that they being the holders of the same, received the said Dera in succession, in accordance with their ancestral share. They also claimed to be in possession of the land attached to the said Dera. They denied it to be a Sikh Gurdwara. This petition was forwarded by the Government to the Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal. In reply to the notice, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, (appellant), claimed it to be a Sikh Gurdwara, having being established by the Sikhs for their worship, wherein "Guru Granth Sahib" was the only object of worship and it was the sole owner of the gurdwara property. It denied this institution to be an Udasi Dera. The appellant’s case was under section 8 and objection could only be filed by any hereditary office holders or by 20 more worshippers of the gurdwara, which they were not. The Tribunal held that the petitioners before it (respondents here) admitted in their cross-examination that the disputed premises was being used by them as their residential house that there was no object of worship in the premises, neither they were performing any public worship nor they were managing it. So it was held they were not hereditary office holders, as they neither managed it nor performed any public worship. Thus, their petition under Section 8 was rejected on 9th February, 1965 by holding that they have no locus standi. Aggrieved by this they filed first appeal, which was also dismissed by the High Court on 24th March, 1976, which became final. Thereafter, the Tribunal took the petition under Section 10, in which the stand of SGPC was that the land and the buildings were the properties of ‘Gurdwara Sahib Dharamshala Guru Granth Sahib’ at Bilaspur. The respondents and their Predecessors along with their family members had all along been its managers and they had no personal rights in it. The Tribunal decided it in favour of S.G.P.C.

Aggrieved by this, respondents filed first appeal. During its pendency, the SGPC on the basis of final order passed by the High Court in FAO No. 40 of 1965 against the order of the Tribunal rejecting Section 8 application, filed suit No. 94 of 1979 against the respondents under Section 25-A of the Act for the possession of the building and the land. The respondents lost the suit.

The matter went upto the High Court. It was for the first time that objection was raised by respondents before the High Court, contending that the entry in the revenue records in the name of Guru Granth Sahib was void as Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person. The case of the respondents was that the Guru Granth Sahib was only a sacred book of the Sikhs and it would not fall within the scope of the word, ‘juristic person’. On the other hand, with vehemence and force, learned Counsel for the appellant, SGPC submitted that Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person and hence it can hold property, can sue and be sued. On this question, whether Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person, a difference arose between the two learned judges of the Bench of the High Court, Mr. Justice Tiwana held it to be a juristic person and dismissed both the appeals upholding the Judgement of the Tribunal. On the other hand, Mr. Justice Punchhi, (as he then was) recorded dissent and held, the Guru Granth Sahib not to be a juristic person, but did not decide the issue on merits. The case was then referred to a third Judge, namely, Mr. Justice Tiwatia who agreed with the view of Mr. Justice Punchhi and held the Guru Granth Sahib not to be a juristic person. After recording this finding the learned judge directed that the appeal may be placed before the Division Bench for final disposal on merits.

That the Hon’ble Judges, by discussing the history of Jurisprundence, and citing judgements passed by different High Court and the Supreme Court of India, held that the High Court committed a serious mistake of law in holding that Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person and allowed the claim over the property in favour of respondents (SGPC) and the judgement and decree passed by the High Court dated 13.4.1985 was set aside. The orders passed by the Tribunal were upheld.

The observations made by the Supreme Court in this judgement about Guru Granth Sahib as a living Guru of the Sikhs are worth mentioning, which are given below :-

1. "The submission of the respondent that ‘Guru Granth Sahib’ is like any other sacred book, like Bible for Christians, Bhagwat Geeta and Ramayana for Hindus and Quran for Islamic followers and cannot be a "Juristic Person", also has no merit. Though it is true Guru Granth Sahib is sacred book like others, but it cannot be equated with these other sacred books in that sense. As we have said above, Guru Granth Sahib is revered in Gurdwara, like a ‘Guru’ which projects a different perception. It is the very heart and spirit of Gurdwara. The reverence of Guru Granth on the one hand and other sacred books on the other hand is based on different conceptual faith, belief and application."

2. "On overall considerations we have no hesitation to hold that ‘Guru Granth Sahib’ is a "Juristic Person". It cannot be equated with an ‘Idol’ as idol worship is contrary to Sikhism. As a concept or a visionary for obeisance, the two religions are different. Yet, for its legal recognition as a Juristic Person, the followers of both the religions give them respectively the same reverential value. Thus the Guru Granth Sahib has all the qualities to be recognised as such. Holding otherwise would mean giving too restrictive a meaning of a "juristic person", and that would erase the very jurisprudence which gave birth to it."

3. "Guru Gobind Singh, expressed in no uncertain terms that henceforth there would not be any living Guru. The Guru Granth Sahib would be the vibrating Guru. He declared that "henceforth it would be your Guru from which you will get all your guidance and answer". It is with this faith that it is worshipped like a living Guru. It is with this faith and conviction, when it is installed in any Gurdwara it becomes a sacred place of worship. Sacredness of Gurdwara is only because of placement of Guru Granth Sahib in it. In this background, ‘Guru Granth Sahib’ is a "Juristic Person".

4. The Granth Sahib is the central object of worship in all Gurdwaras.

"It is usually draped in silk and placed on a cot. It has an awning over it and while it is being read, one of the congregations stands behind and waves a flywhisk made of Yak’s hair. Worshippers go down on their knees to make obeisance and place offerings of cash or kind before it as they would before a king, for the Granth is to them what the Gurus were to their ancestors - the Saca Padshah (the true Emperor)".

"The very first verse of the Guru Granth Sahib reveals the infinite wisdom and wealth that it contains as to its legitimacy for being revered as Guru :-

"The First verse states :

"The Creator of all is one, the only one. Truth is his Name. He is doer of every thing. He is without fear and without enemity. His form is immoral. He is unborn and self-illuminated. He is realized by Guru’s grace".

5. "When Guru Gobind Singh felt that his worldly sojourn was near, he made the fact known to his disciples. The disciples asked him as to who would be their Guru in future. The Guru immediately placed five pies and a coconut before the holy Granth, bowed his head before it and said:

"The Eternal Father Willed, and I raised the Panth. All my Sikhs are ordained to believe the Granth as their preceptor.

"Have faith in the holy Granth as your Master and consider it.

"The visible manifestation of the Gurus.

"He who hath a pure heart will seek guidance from its holy words.

The Guru repeated these words and told the disciples not to grieve at his departure.

"It was true that they would not see his body in its physical manifestation but he would be ever present among the Khalsas. Whenever the Sikhs needed guidance or counsel, they should assemble before the Granth in all sincerity and decide their future line of action in the light of teachings of the Master, as embodied in the Granth. The noble ideas embodied in the Granth would live for ever and show people the path to bliss and happiness".

Post-Script: This judgment shall have far reaching effects on properties of Gurdwaras in Ganganagar District of Rajasthan where the Maharaja of Bikaner Ganga Singh by taking out Bikaner Canal in the year 1927 rehabilitated 1200 villages of District Ganganagar and donated 5 kilas of land to Gurdwaras, in every village. Later on the Gurdwaras land was transferred in the name of Sewadars in many villages and the State Government refused to renew the land allotted to Gurdwaras under the terms and conditions of temporary allotment Act, 1955 on the ground that land can be allotted only to landless persons. Gurdwaras deprived of land could take the advantage of the Supreme Court Judgement. Proceedings can be initiated for the renewal of the land allotted to Gurdwaras.

Another effect of this Judgment could be on the Radha Soami Satsang Dera Beas. The land of Dera Baba Jaimal Singh Headquarters of Radha Soami Satsang Beas was given in charity for construction of Dharamsala in the name of Guru Granth Sahib in the year 1897. Some independent enquiries made by some Journalists, and checking with the Sikh Historians, reveals that a land measuring 11 kanals and 15 marlas which was jointly owned by Sikh residents of Balsaran Village was given in charity to Baba Jaimal Singh for the construction of Dharamsala in the name of Guru Granth Sahib. Even departmental land records show that the land was transferred in the name of Guru Granth Sahib under Land Registry No. 254 dated June 14, 1897.