The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a PIL seeking directions regarding protection, preservation, regulation and audit of Sikh religious and heritage properties nationwide, while hearing petitioner Charanjeet Singh, who personally argued for judicial intervention before the Court.
The Supreme Court of India refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a wide range of directions concerning the protection, preservation, regulation and audit of Sikh religious and heritage properties across the country.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter filed by petitioner Charanjeet Singh, who appeared before the Court in person and argued the case himself. During the hearing, the petitioner urged the Court to issue notice on his plea and pressed for judicial intervention in matters relating to Sikh religious institutions and heritage properties.
At one stage during the proceedings, Singh bowed before the Bench and appealed emotionally to the Court.
Singh said,
“I bow before you. Please issue a notice on my petition,”
The Bench, however, indicated that the nature of reliefs sought in the petition primarily involved legislative and policy considerations that fell outside the scope of judicial intervention.
Chief Justice Surya Kant observed that while the Court remained accessible to citizens at all times, the issues raised in the plea would require amendments to existing laws and statutory mechanisms, which were matters within Parliament’s domain.
The CJI said,
“The court is here for you; you may come whenever you wish. But these issues require amendments to the law, for which you must go to Parliament. You should approach the Petition Committee of Parliament,”
Also Read: “Religious Conversion Open to All, But Requires Proof to be Voluntary”: Allahabad HC
The Court also expressed concern that direct judicial intervention in the issues raised by the petitioner could be perceived as interference in religious affairs and institutional administration.
The CJI observed,
“If we step in, it might appear as though there is interference in religious matters,”
At the same time, the Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court again if he remained dissatisfied with the response received from the Parliamentary Petition Committee or other competent authorities.
The PIL had sought a comprehensive restructuring of the manner in which Sikh religious and heritage properties are managed, monitored and protected throughout India. One of the principal prayers in the petition sought a writ directing the Union government to establish a national authority for preservation and regulation of Sikh heritage properties.
The petition stated,
“Issue a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to constitute a National Khalsayi Sikh Heritage Protection Authority for identification, preservation, audit and protection of all Khalsayi Sikh heritage properties across India,”
The plea further sought directions to all State governments and Union Territories to prepare and place on record a complete inventory of Sikh religious, historical and endowment properties situated within their respective jurisdictions.
The petitioner also requested that the inventory should include details relating to ownership, transfers, lease arrangements and alleged encroachments involving such properties.
In addition, the PIL sought directions to the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) to conduct special audits of statutory boards, committees, trusts and other institutions involved in managing Sikh religious and heritage assets.
The petition also prayed for investigation by central agencies into alleged illegal transactions and financial irregularities connected to Sikh heritage properties.
Specifically, the petitioner requested directions to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to investigate cases allegedly involving “large-scale illegal alienation, undervaluation, misappropriation or laundering of proceeds derived from Sikh heritage properties.”
The Supreme Court, however, declined to issue notice or entertain the PIL at this stage, reiterating that the concerns raised by the petitioner were matters better suited for consideration by legislative and executive authorities rather than through judicial directions under Article 32 of the Constitution.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE