Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass
Supreme Court of India · 29 March 2000 · 2 judges
Guru Granth Sahib installed in a gurdwara is a juristic person that can hold property; the High Court's contrary view was set aside and the Tribunal's finding that the disputed land belonged to the gurdwara was restored.
Facts
Villagers petitioned under Section 7(1) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 to declare a property at Bilaspur, District Patiala, a Sikh Gurdwara. The respondents claimed it as an Udasi dera owned by their family. The Sikh Gurdwara Tribunal rejected their Section 8 petition for want of standing and their Section 10 petition on the merits, holding the property to belong to the gurdwara. Revenue mutations of 1928, recorded after an enquiry in the presence of the respondents' ancestors, stood in the name of 'Guru Granth Sahib Barajman Dharamshala Deh'. In first appeals, the High Court, after differences between Judges and references to third Judges, held that Guru Granth Sahib is not a juristic person, treated the mutations as void and allowed the respondents' claim. The SGPC appealed.
Questions before the Court
- Whether Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person capable of holding property.
- Whether the mutations in the name of Guru Granth Sahib were invalid, and whether the respondents had any claim to the disputed property.
What the Court held
- Juristic personality is a creation of law and is not confined to a defined circle; it may be conferred on an entity recognised by society out of faith and for public good. Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person. It need not be equated with an idol, since idol worship is contrary to Sikhism.
- A juristic person does not fail for want of a manager; trustees or the court can provide management, and an endowment once made is irrevocable.
- Guru Granth Sahib and the gurdwara are not two competing juristic persons but one integrated whole. Not every copy is a juristic person: it takes that role only on installation in a gurdwara or other recognised public place.
- The mutations followed a proper enquiry, not merely the Farman-i-Shahi, and stood unchallenged for about forty years; the respondents' ancestors were only trustees. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal's orders upheld.
Why it matters
The judgment recognises Guru Granth Sahib, installed in a gurdwara, as a juristic person able to own property, and explains juristic personality as a flexible legal device that courts may extend to new entities according to the faith and needs of society. It also holds that an endowment does not fail for want of a manager.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In this background, and on over all 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.”
“Faith and belief cannot be judged through any judicial scrutiny. It is a fact accomplished and accepted by its followers. This faith necessitated the creation of a unit to be recognised as a Juristic Person. All this shows that a Juristic Person is not roped in any defined circle. With the changing thoughts, changing needs of the society, fresh juristic personalities were created from time to time.”
“An idol becomes a juristic person only when it is consecrated and installed at a public place for public at large. Every idol is not a juristic person. So every Guru Granth Sahib cannot be a juristic person unless it takes juristic role through its installation in a gurudwara or at such other recognised public place.”
“Once endowment is made, it is final and it is irrevocable. It is the onerous duty of the persons entrusted with such endowment, to carry out the objectives of this entrustment. They may appoint a manager in the absence of any indication in the trust or get it appointed through Court. So, if entrustment is to any juristic person, mere absence of manager would not negate the existence a juristic person.”
Provisions interpreted
- Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, Sections 7, 8 and 10
Case and bench
- Parties
- Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Shri Som Nath Dass & Ors.
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1987 (with S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 2735-36 of 1989)
- Decided
- 29 March 2000
- Bench
- A.P. Misra, M. Jagannadha Rao
- Opinions
- Judgment delivered by Misra, J. No separate opinion appears in the text.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.