<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, saying affairs of a religious minority, including freedom to manage their shrines, have been left in hands of Sikh alone with the new enactment.</p>.<p>The 2014 law allowed formation of a separate juristic body, other than the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee, to manage affairs of historical shrines in the state.</p>.<p>"Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 (freedom to practice religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution," a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath said.</p>.<p>The court also noted the affairs of the religious minority in the State, i e, Sikhs is left in the hands of the Sikhs alone in the same manner as was under the 1925 Sikh Gurudwara Act. </p>.<p>"The Haryana Act also provides for Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission in the same manner as is provided under the 1925 Act. The affairs of the Gurdwara are again required to be managed by local Gurdwara Committee," the bench said.</p>.<p>The Congress government led by Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda had passed the law, creating a separate juristic entity for the management of historical Gurdwaras in the state.</p>.<p>Kurukshetra-based Harbhajan Singh, also the executive committee member of the SGPC challenged the validity of law.</p>.<p>Before the state enactment, the SGPC managed the Gurdwaras covered by the 1925 Act and spread over the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh.</p>.<p>During the arguments, the Centre maintained only Parliament has the exclusive power to enact law on the subject. </p>.<p>"There is no justification for the Haryana State Legislature to have passed a law on the same subject matter, taking away the jurisdiction of the Board constituted under the 1925 Act. It also said only central government could give directions with regard to functioning and operation of an inter-state body corporate, i e, SGPC," it said. </p>.<p>Referring to the 1956 States Reorganisation Act or the 1966 Punjab Reorganisation Act, the court noted both the law empowered the central government to issue directions to make the inter-state entity functional. But the central government has not been given power to legislate in respect of such inter-State bodies which came to be operational in one or more States due to the reorganisation of the States.</p>.<p>The bench further said the 1925 Act was originally an intra-State legislation enacted by the State legislature and it subsequently became an inter-State body only by virtue of the 1966 Act. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutional validity of Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, saying affairs of a religious minority, including freedom to manage their shrines, have been left in hands of Sikh alone with the new enactment.</p>.<p>The 2014 law allowed formation of a separate juristic body, other than the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee, to manage affairs of historical shrines in the state.</p>.<p>"Since the affairs of the Sikh minority in the State are to be managed by the Sikhs alone, therefore, it cannot be said to be violative of any of the fundamental rights conferred under Articles 25 (freedom to practice religion) and 26 (freedom to manage religious affairs) of the Constitution," a bench of Justices Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath said.</p>.<p>The court also noted the affairs of the religious minority in the State, i e, Sikhs is left in the hands of the Sikhs alone in the same manner as was under the 1925 Sikh Gurudwara Act. </p>.<p>"The Haryana Act also provides for Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission in the same manner as is provided under the 1925 Act. The affairs of the Gurdwara are again required to be managed by local Gurdwara Committee," the bench said.</p>.<p>The Congress government led by Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda had passed the law, creating a separate juristic entity for the management of historical Gurdwaras in the state.</p>.<p>Kurukshetra-based Harbhajan Singh, also the executive committee member of the SGPC challenged the validity of law.</p>.<p>Before the state enactment, the SGPC managed the Gurdwaras covered by the 1925 Act and spread over the States of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Union Territory of Chandigarh.</p>.<p>During the arguments, the Centre maintained only Parliament has the exclusive power to enact law on the subject. </p>.<p>"There is no justification for the Haryana State Legislature to have passed a law on the same subject matter, taking away the jurisdiction of the Board constituted under the 1925 Act. It also said only central government could give directions with regard to functioning and operation of an inter-state body corporate, i e, SGPC," it said. </p>.<p>Referring to the 1956 States Reorganisation Act or the 1966 Punjab Reorganisation Act, the court noted both the law empowered the central government to issue directions to make the inter-state entity functional. But the central government has not been given power to legislate in respect of such inter-State bodies which came to be operational in one or more States due to the reorganisation of the States.</p>.<p>The bench further said the 1925 Act was originally an intra-State legislation enacted by the State legislature and it subsequently became an inter-State body only by virtue of the 1966 Act. </p>
