Last Updated on January 16, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Recent significant SGPC cases in the Punjab & Haryana High Court involve challenges to employee dismissals and withheld benefits, primarily related to the missing Guru Granth Sahib saroops, where the court affirmed the SGPC’s statutory service rules are binding, making writ petitions maintainable, and emphasized due process for employees, though upholding actions where misconduct (like misuse of saroops) was proven, while also dealing with broader issues like Haryana’s SGPC Act, 2023.

POWER OF SHIROMANI GURDWARA PARBANDHAK COMMITTEE

The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (or SGPC) is an organization in India responsible for the management of gurdwaras, Sikh places of worship in three states of Punjab, Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh and union territory of Chandigarh.

Also Read- Criminal Revision Cheque Bounce High Court Chandigarh

The foundation of this committee happened in 1920 the emerging Akali leadership summoned a general assembly of the Sikhs holding all shades of opinion on 15 November 1920 in vicinity of the Akal Takht in Amritsar. The purpose of this assembly was to elect a representative committee of the Sikhs to administer the Harimandir Sahib Complex and other important historical gurdwaras. Two days before the proposed conference the British government set up its own committee consisting of 36 Sikhs to manage the Harimandir Sahib. Sikhs held their scheduled meeting and elected a bigger committee consisting of 175 members and named it Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee. The members of the government appointed committee were also included in it. Harbans Singh Attari became vice president and Sunder Singh Ramgarhia became secretary of the committee. By that time Master Tara Singh had started taking interest in Sikh religious affairs. He was one of the 175 members elected to the committee. The formation of Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee provided a focal point for the movement for the reformation of Sikh religious places. The Committee began to take over management of gurdwaras one by one, and were resisted by incumbent mahants.

SGPC also administers Darbar Sahib in Amritsar.The SGPC is governed by the chief minister of Punjab.The SGPC manages the security, financial, facility maintenance and religious aspects of Gurdwaras as well as keeping archaeologically rare and sacred artifacts, including weapons, clothes, books and writings of the Sikh Gurus.

Bibi Jagir Kaur became the first woman to be elected president of the SGPC for the second time in September 2004. She had held the same post from March 1999 to November 2000.

Also Read- WRITS IN PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

GURUDWARA’S ACT OF 1925

Hailey presented a draft of a new Gurdwara Bill to the Akali leaders imprisoned in Lahore fort. Master Tara Singh, Bhag singh Advocate, Gurcharn singh Advocate, Teja Singh Akerpuri(Jathedar AkalTakht Sahib) Sohan Singh Josh and Sardar Teja Singh Samundri studied each clause of the bill carefully. The bill met all the Akali demands and was signed into law on 28 July 1925 by the Viceroy of India after its ratification by the Punjab legislative council. The Act came into force on 1 November 1925 with a gazette notification from the government of Punjab.

Also Read- Section 319 CrPC High Court Chandigarh Judgment

The Act made a Central Gurdwara Board elected by the Sikhs to be the custodian of all-important Sikh places of worship. The first meeting of the Gurdwara board passed a resolution that its designation be changed to Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, which was accepted by the government. Thus ended what came to be known in common parlance as the ‘Third Sikh War’.The Punjab government withdrew its orders declaring the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and other Akali organs as unlawful associations and recognized the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee as a representative body of the Sikhs. In making the Punjab government agree to such recognition, the Akali leadership undoubtedly scored a victory over the bureaucracy.

Also Read- Whether DRT or High Court Chandigarh for Payment Default (NPA)

1953 AMENDMENT TO GURDWARAS ACT OF 1925

In 1953, an amendment to the 1925 act allowed the reservation of 20 out 140 seats on the SGPC for the members of the Sikh scheduled castes

2016 AMENDMENT TO GURDWARAS ACT OF 1925

The 2016 amendment to the act by the Indian parliament stripped around 7 million ‘Sehajdhari’ Sikhs of voting in the SGPC elections

CASE: GURMIT SINGH AND ORS VS BUTA SINGH AND ANR ON 24 FEBRUARY, 2020

The brief facts relevant to the present case are that respondents herein filed a petition under Section 142 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on the grounds that the petitioners herein were not managing the affairs of the Gurudwara Sahib as per the Act, rules.

Also Read- 498A 406 IPC Anticipatory Bail High Court Chandigarh

In the petition that the petitioners herein were not celebrating important days, i.e., Amawas and Sangrad as per Nanakshahi Calender. For which the respondents herein also filed an application under Order 39, Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC for restraining the petitioners from holding any office in the SGPC and in the notified Gurudwara Sahib. And petitioners filed their reply and ask for stay under section 142 of the Act to the court.

Since the judgment of the Full Bench has not been considered by the Division Bench, this Bench would be bound by the ratio of the larger Bench and, hence, this Court has no hesitation in holding that as per the law laid down by the Full Bench in Shiromani Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and another (supra), the Commission would have the power to pass interim orders as well as to appoint a Receiver.

No other point has been urged.

The court do not find any merit in the present revision petition, which is, hence, dismissed.

Also Read- High Court Chandigarh Quashing of FIR in Matrimonial Disputes

Key Recent Rulings & Issues:

Statutory Nature of SGPC Rules: The High Court has consistently held that SGPC Service Rules have statutory force, meaning disputes under them aren’t just contractual, and the court can intervene under Article 226/227.
Missing Saroops Cases (e.g., Kanwaljit Singh v. SGPC):
- Petitions challenging termination/withheld benefits due to missing saroops were heard.
- The Court upheld dismissals where misuse of saroops was proven, emphasizing natural justice.
- However, it also ruled that benefits can’t be withheld without proper disciplinary proceedings, even in these cases, highlighting procedural fairness.
Haryana SGPC Act, 2023: Cases have also challenged the legislative competence of the Haryana Assembly to enact laws related to the SGPC (specifically the 2023 Act), with parties arguing against the state’s power to interfere with Sikh religious affairs, a matter potentially heading to higher courts.

General Themes:

Jurisdiction: The Court asserts its jurisdiction over SGPC, treating it as a statutory body.
Due Process: Strict adherence to the SGPC Service Rules and principles of natural justice is required in employee matters.
Misconduct vs. Process: While punishing proven misconduct (like saroop misuse) is supported, arbitrary withholding of benefits without following rules is struck down.

In essence, the High Court acts as an arbiter, ensuring SGPC follows its own rules and the Constitution, even while dealing with sensitive religious matters and employee discipline.

For case specific advice, please contact best/top/expert Punjab Haryana High Court Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Zirakpur Derabassi Kharar etc.

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.