HC bins pleas for caste-based reservation in gurdwara polls

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Friday ruled that seeking caste or gender-based reservations in elections to a Sikh religious institution contradicts the foundational principles of Sikhism.

Referring to the Sikh philosophy of equality and unity, the Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeevan also dismissed a bunch of petitions.

Among other things, it was argued in the petitions that the failure to reserve seats in the general elections to the Haryana Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee for the Schedule Castes, Backward Classes and women was unconstitutional and against the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

“It is significant to note seeking reservation on the basis of caste and gender, for the purpose of elections in a Sikh religious institution, will go against the irreproachable philosophy of Sikh religion. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel a body or the State to provide for reservation,” the Bench ruled.

The court asserted that the division of society based on caste or creed contradicted the fundamental principles of Sikhism as Guru Nanak Dev — the founder of the religion — always advocated for a casteless society.

“The philosophy of Sikh religion emphasises on oneness of all human beings. The Sikhism founded by Shri Guru Nanak Dev ji underscores the importance of principle ek noor te sab jag upjya — which signifies that from one light, i.e. from a universal source, the entire universe is made of. The initial word in Shri Guru Grant Sahib ji is Ik Onkar, which denotes that there is only one universal creator i.e. ‘god’ referred to as ‘Onkar’. It also implies oneness in all forms of mankind,” the Bench asserted.

The court added that Sikhism abided by its philosophies and tenets. The practice of langar or community kitchen was the best example of oneness. “Langar halls are one of those places where everyone is treated equally and offered a meal; where attendees sit on floor and eat simple food,” the Bench observed.

The court also observed that Article 15 of the Constitution merely empowered the State to make special provisions, but did not mandate reservations in all fields. Otherwise also, the Representation of the People Act cited by the petitioners governed parliamentary and aAsembly elections and was inapplicable to elections in religious bodies.