Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

High Court Upholds Religious Institution’s Right to Self-Management: Management Cannot Be Deprived by Appointing Receiver Without Basis

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurbir Singh, set a significant precedent regarding the management rights of religious institutions. The judgment centered on the dispute over the control of Dera Baba Jawahar Dass Ji, a well-known Sikh religious establishment in Village Soos, District Hoshiarpur.

Justice Singh, in his comprehensive ruling, emphasized that “management from the plaintiffs can only be taken back in accordance with law and not forcibly, and the same cannot be given to the Receiver without any basis.” This assertion underlines the court’s stance on preserving the sanctity and autonomy of religious institutions in managing their affairs.

The case revolved around a Charitable Trust formed to manage the Dera after the Gram Panchayat of Village Soos handed over its management. The defendants contested this move, leading to a legal battle that questioned the Trust’s legitimacy and the Gram Panchayat’s authority.

The High Court’s decision overturned the lower courts’ appointment of a Receiver-cum-Administrator, reinstating the plaintiffs’ management rights. “The appointment of Receiver is one of the extreme measures which the Court normally takes with a view to protect the property being squandered,” Justice Singh stated, highlighting the careful considerations necessary in such appointments.

The ruling has been hailed as a significant step in protecting the rights of religious institutions to self-governance. The court also emphasized the necessity for religious institutions managed by Trusts to maintain regular financial records, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Legal experts view this judgment as a reinforcement of religious institutions’ autonomy, setting a benchmark for future cases involving the management of religious properties. The case was represented by Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Ms. Priyanka Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners, and Ms. Divya Jerath, Advocate for Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

This judgment is expected to have far-reaching implications, particularly in cases where the management rights of religious institutions are contested. The High Court’s decision is a reminder of the legal system’s role in upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the management of religious entities.

Date of Decision: 15 November  2023

Gurudwara Gurdarshan Parkash and another VS Rashpal Singh and others

 

Latest Legal News