Wife Not Entitled to Maintenance When Financially Secure and Dishonest: Punjab & Haryana High Court Boycott of Courts Violates Litigants’ Right to Speedy Justice: Rajasthan High Court Slams Lawyers' Strike Over Working Saturdays Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Proviso Cannot Defeat the Main Provision Which Allows Amendment ‘At Any Stage of Proceedings’: Karnataka High Court Knife Used To Enlarge Child’s Vagina Before Rape: Madhya Pradesh High Court Affirms Death Sentence In ‘Rarest Of Rare’ Case 47 BNSS | Mere Mention of Offence and Sections Is Not Disclosure of Grounds of Arrest: Allahabad High Court Quashes Arrest for Failure to Furnish Written Grounds Quasi-Judicial Officers Aren’t Criminals For Passing Orders: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Against Executive Officer In Mutation Dispute Sections 215 & 379 BNSS | Police Cannot Register FIR Without Judicial Satisfaction Where Alleged Offence Relates to Court Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Magistrate Empowered To Try Drug Offence Under Section 27(d) Despite It Falling Under Chapter IV: J&K High Court Information Commission Has No Power To Impose Blanket Ban On RTI Applications: Orissa High Court Strikes Down Restriction On Filing Future RTIs Anticipatory Bail Is Not a Shield for Crimes That Threaten Communal Harmony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Bail Plea in Beef Possession Case Drug And Cosmetic Act | Sample Testing Must Be Completed Within 60 Days Under Rule 45 – Delay Vitiates Entire Prosecution: Bombay High Court 156(3) CrPC | Handwriting Expert's Report May Not Be Final – But It’s Sufficient to Initiate Investigation: Delhi High Court 217 CrPC | Alteration of Charges Is Not a Mere Formality: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Dowry Death Conviction Maintenance Is Not a Charity, It's an Implied Right: Chhattisgarh High Court Cancels Gift Deed for Denial of Care to Elderly Donors Minor Inconsistencies Can't Overturn Disability Claims: Bombay High Court imposes ₹2 lakh costs on HDFC Justice Must Not Be a Casualty of Clerical Oversight: AP High Court Last Seen Is Not Last Word – Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Complete and Compelling: Allahabad High Court Nomination Has Sanctity—Succession Certificate Not Mandatory When Valid Nominee Exists: Supreme Court in GPF Dispute

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