Yesterday Sikkim High Court rejected a petition filed by Sri Guru Singh Sabha, a Sikh body, seeking the restoration of Guru Granth Sahib and other religious articles in a Gurudwara which were removed from the Gurudwara in 2017 and have been at the center of a heated legal
battle.

The single-headed bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai said that the case raised various complex issues related to facts and legality.

These matters needed to be thoroughly examined in a civil court, making it unsuitable for resolution through Article 226 of the Constitution.

“..the locus standi of the Petitioner No.1 is in dispute, the dismantling and removal of the articles on 16-08-2017 are in dispute, the articles alleged to have been handed and taken over by the Army to the civilians, respectively, is disputed. The method of removal of the articles is in dispute. The entity of the religious personalities is in dispute. It requires no reiteration that disputed questions of fact cannot be determined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution”.

The central issue pertained to the purported removal of sacred religious artifacts, which included Guru Granth Sahib Ji, from a Gurudwara located in Chungthang, Sikkim.

The petitioner body asserted its representation of the Gurudwaras in Sikkim, authorized by the Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee. They drew upon historical evidence, which confirmed the existence of the Gurudwara near Gurudongmar Lake, with a visit by Guru Nanak Dev Ji in 1516, as well as several official documents from 1998 supporting its presence. Additionally, it was claimed that the state government was well aware of its existence.

The petitioner contended that the Forest Department’s inspection in 1997 led to concerns about environmental impact and in response, a committee was formed, recommending removal of the Gurudwara. Subsequently, the Army agreed to hand over the structure for
multi-faith worship, resolving this in 2000. However, in 2017, Gurudwara's articles were allegedly desecrated, causing a violation of religious rights under Article 25 of the Constitution.

Contesting the plea, the respondents admitted to dismantling the structure at Gurudongmar Tso on August 16, 2017, but they claimed that the articles were moved with the intention of relocation. The state also pointed out that the petitioner lacks standing and that the case
involves disputed facts and religious history, making it unsuitable for resolution in a writ court.

The court highlighted the complex nature of the case involving multiple disputed questions of fact, including the ownership of the land, the removal process, and the intentions behind the relocation. The Judge emphasized the lack of concrete evidence from both parties to substantiate their claims and noted that the petitioner had failed to convincingly establish the illegality of the removal.

It further emphasized that the right to freedom of religion, as protected by Article 25, is fundamental but subject to certain limitations such as public order, morality, and health.

“Article 25 of the Constitution allows the State adequate legroom to rein in the circumstances which are not compliant with the constitutional provision. The right of the State to impose such
restrictions as are desired or found necessary, for the purposes of public order, health, and morality is inbuilt in Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution”.

The court observed that the land on which the contested religious structures were constructed was classified as forest land. Utilizing forest land for non-forest purposes necessitates permission, which neither the petitioners nor the respondents had secured. This raised a fundamental question concerning the legality of the structures' construction.

The court noted that there were conflicting claims and counter-claims concerning the alleged desecration of religious articles, the dismantling of the structures, and the transfer of religious
artifacts. These issues constituted intricate matters of fact that necessitated thorough examination.

“The Petition at hand raises complicated questions of fact for appropriate and just determination, for which oral evidence is imperative and all parties are to be afforded an opportunity for such an exercise..the claims of title to the property on which the structures were constructed requires to be given a quietus before the Petitioners and the Respondents raise other issues for determination, such declaration cannot be made by this Court”, the bench maintained.

As such, the bench dismissed the plea.

Case Title: Sri Guru Singh Sabha and Another Vs The State of Sikkim