Jaldi-Vidhi

State of Punjab v. Sahil Mittal

Case details and hearing information from the Constitution Bench Pendency Portal.

554

Message: show

State of Punjab v. Sahil Mittal

2024-12-24T07:37:52.406251+05:30

This case deals with granting of minority status to Sikhs in Punjab.

Petitioners Arguments: Seats in the minority quota were allotted on the basis of an All India entrance examination, and seats were also allotted to Sikh students from states where they were minorities. Such minority rights should not be denied to them. Sikhs would be in the minority in the state according to the definition of “Sikh” under Section 2(9) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 , which requires a practising Sikh to declare that he/she believes in the Ten Gurus and the Guru Granth Sahib (considered the only living Guru) only. This would exclude several sects (such as the Nirankaris, Udasis etc.) whose proponents believe in other living Gurus. This belief is contrary to the basic tenets of Sikhism. Some of these sects had also been held to be non Sikhs under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act by the court (in Hem Singh v. Basant Das , Mahant Harnam Singh v. Gurdial Singh etc.). Census data which considered members of sects like the Nirankaris, Udasis etc as Sikhs could not be used to determine the issue of numerical majority. Further, mere declaration that a citizen was a Sikh was not enough to treat him/her as a Sikh. Therefore, the population of Sikhs in the State was to be taken to be the total number of voters eligible to vote in the SGPC elections, which included all Sikhs above the age of 21 and excluded sects that did not adhere to the tenets of Sikhism The minority status of Sikhs was a question of fact that courts could not go into The question of minority status should be interpreted liberally ( re: The Kerala Education Bill, 1957 ).
Responders Arguments: Under Section 8 of the Act complaints could be filed for violation of the Act or directions or notification and, therefore, the writ was not maintainable. Affected students and affected institutions have not been impleaded as parties and on that ground also, the writ petition was not maintainable. On merits, it has been stated that declaration of institutions run by the SGPC as minority institutions vide notifications dated 3-4-2001 and 25-4-2006 was valid. That the state was to be regarded as a unit for determining if a community constituted a minority (as held in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka . The notification being on the basis that Sikhs were a national minority could not be held to be valid. As per Census data, Sikhs were in the majority in the state of Punjab. That if Sikhs were not a minority in the state of Punjab, additional privileges (in the form of this quota) had been provided to a particular group of citizens (namely the Sikhs), which were not provided to similarly placed citizens, therefore, thereby violating Article 14.
Last Listed On: 2022-08-30
Start Date: 2010-11-18
Card Stage Date: 2010-11-18
Review Petition No: SLP (C) No. 3660/2008
Case Status: Pending
Bench Status: To be reconstituted
Subject Matter: Constitution
Pendency: 15 years, 7 months, 12 days

5 Judge Bench

2024-01-04T12:23:31.606715+05:30

Awaiting bench reconstitution

2025-02-07T14:57:20.465998+05:30

Consider As Stage Of Pendency: true

Date of institution of case

2024-02-07T08:07:40.886454+05:30

Date of reference to 5 Judge Bench

2024-12-30T08:38:36.514676+05:30

2024-12-24T08:19:19.726048+05:30

The government of Punjab, through a notification dated 13-4-2001, declared that Sikh Educational institutions run by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) in the State of Punjab to be minority institutions, allowing them to reserve 50% of their seats for members of the Sikh community. According to the notification, this was done as Sikhs were a minority community in the country. By another notification dated 18-6-2007, institutions were allowed to divide NRI seats equally between seats under the Government quota and Management quota. Further, separate fee structures were fixed for seats under the Government quota and Management quota by a notification dated 1-8-2007. The above three notifications were challenged in a writ petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court on grounds of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Punjab and Haryana High Court heard the matter and struck down the notification on the grounds that the government had not applied relevant parameters for declaring Sikhs to be a minority. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the decision in Bal Patil v. Union of India principles enumerated in which have been used by the High Court to adjudicate on this matter, was under reconsideration. The matter remains part heard in front of the five judge bench, with the Court having expressed doubts regarding the correctness of the decision in Bal Patil v. Union of India . Some of the judges on the previous bench have retired and a new bench will need to be constituted to hear the matter.

2024-12-24T08:20:14.062207+05:30

Should Sikhs be accorded minority status in the state of Punjab? Is the decision Bal Patil v. Union of India legally correct?

Section 2(9) of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925.

2024-12-24T07:38:33.484584+05:30

2024-12-24T08:21:22.386194+05:30

The division bench of the Supreme Court before whom this matter had come up had said that it would be appropriate to place these matters to be heard along with another set of petitions (Writ Petition(C) Nos. 9683-9684 of 1983) and had asked for the matter be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India (CJI) for further appropriate orders. However, instead of tagging these matters with the already pending cases, the CJI constituted a five judge bench to hear the matter. Consequently, the reasons why the case was referred to a Constitution Bench cannot be gleaned from the orders of the division bench. It appears from the division bench’s order that since the main case relied upon by the High Court while delivering its judgment (i.e. Bal Patil) was under consideration before the Apex Court already, the matter needed to be placed before the CJI.

Bal Patil v. Union of India [(2005) 6 SCC 690]

2024-12-24T07:47:59.123379+05:30

Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee v. Shail Mittal

2024-12-24T07:59:19.902885+05:30

Date Of Institution Start: 2008-01-29
Date Of Tagging: 2008-05-13
Case No: SLP(C) No. 2755/2008
Date Of Tagging Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QYe1rJePivLkuHKliS1_w87BYZOzYUWH/view