The Tribune – Sehajdhari Sikh Party to fight against SAD in DSGMC poll

Tribune News Service

Amritsar, January 5. With the Election Commission of India approving the change of name of the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation to the Sehajdhari Sikh Party, its president Dr P S Ranu has announced to oppose SAD candidates in the upcoming Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC) elections.

The federation had been instrumental in getting the notification debarring “sehajdhari” sikhs from voting in the SGPC elections quashed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Ranu along with his supporters was here to pay obeisance at the Golden Temple after the ECI approved the change in the federation name.

Ranu said the Sehajdhari Sikh Party would also contest the next Lok Sabha elections. He claimed the party had supported Congress candidates in the state assembly elections held last year by withdrawing 21 candidates it had fielded from various constituencies. “The Congress had won 17 seats where we had supported them,” he said.

Ranu said the party would seek votes for its candidates having good moral values. Party workers from Haryana and Punjab would put up in Delhi during the elections, he added.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2013/20130106/punjab.htm#10

The Tribune – Sehajdhari issue: Patits can’t claim voting rights, Supreme Court told

Comment
If the translation of patit as apostate is correct, then patits are those that promised to keep the turban and the 5 Ks and live the Sikh way of life as taught in the Guru Granth, and who broke that promise. If you were born in a Sikh family and on reaching adulthood cut your hair, that does not fit into my understanding of ‘apostate’. Of course terms like Keshdhari or a Sehajdhari are meaningless in the light of Gurmat.
HSKh Man in Blue

R Sedhuraman, Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, August 31. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) has contended in the Supreme Court that members of the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation (SSF), including its president Paramjit Singh Ranu, were ‘patits’ and as such could not claim the right to vote in the SGPC elections. The committee’s contention comes in the wake of SSF questioning the SGPC board’s power to challenge the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict restoring the voting rights of the Sehajdharis.

The averments of both the SGPC and the SSF have been made in their respective documents filed in the SC which is hearing the SGPC appeal against the December 20, 2011, High Court verdict. The case was listed for hearing today before a Bench comprising Justices RM Lodha and Anil Dave, but could not be taken up because the notice process was incomplete. The SSF “is in fact a body of Patit Sikhs who have been clearly excluded from the purview of the Sikh religion by virtue of definition assigned to ‘patit’ under Section 2(11) of the Sikh Gurdwara Act 1925,” the SGPC contended.

The definition of Sehajdhari Sikh under section 10-A of the 1925 Act “specifically excludes a patit from its ambit” and, therefore, the SSF had no right to seek inclusion in the electoral process as voters.

The SSF had contended that since the SGPC did not have a legally constituted body in existence at present, it had no authority to challenge the HC verdict. Rejecting this, the SGPC pointed out that under Section 51 of the 1925 Act the board once constituted would continue until the constitution of the new board.

Under the 1925 Act, Sikh religious places could be managed only by Sikhs and as such giving Sehajdharis the right to vote in the SGPC elections would be against this legal provision, the SGPC contended. The SGPC rejected the SSF plea that the Sehajdharis only wanted the right to vote and not the right to run gurdwaras . The right to vote “is an inherent part of management and cannot be surgically separated or severed.”

The SGPC also rejected the SSF contention that since the voting rights had been given through a 1944 amendment to the 1925 Act, these could not have been taken away through an official notification by the Centre on October 8, 2003. In fact, the amendment was an “aberration” and was against the core of the 1925 Act, it argued. The SGPC maintained that the fact that the Centre had not challenged the HC verdict did not mean that the government had accepted it. The Centre was yet to file its affidavit in the apex court, it pointed out.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120901/punjab.htm#5

519.Man in Blue – The Sikh Identity

I am an Amritdhari Sikh and wear the five Ks and a turban. I do this because the Guru asked me, and because I believe it is a useful part of my spiritual discipline. My turban and beard make me a recognisable Sikh, but that does not mean that I am a Sikh because I look like one.

I am not a Sikh because I took amrit and I am not a Sikh because my parents were Sikhs (they were not). The definition in the Sikh Rehat Maryada is quite clear : the main element of being a Sikh is following the teachings of the Guru Granth Sahib and the example set by the Gurus through their Gursikh way of life.

The SGPC is rarely able to do anything that is in line with Guru’s Teachings. But this time they have been caught by their own foolishness. Under pressure of the Badal Dal the union government issued a notification saying that only those who have uncut/unshaven etc hair can vote in the SGPC elections.

The 2011 SGPC elections were held on that basis, but have since been successfully challenged by another un-Sikh outfit : the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation. I do not think that the Supreme Court has ruled on the merits of being Keshdhari or Sehajdhari, but on the grounds that a law should not be changed by a notification.

The Sikh identity is defined by behaving as the Guru taught us. Live in the world, but do not be ruled by it, see God’s presence in all, be ready to serve all, make an honest living, think about God with all you do, recognise that there are people in all traditions who are true Students of the Teacher of Teachers etc, etc.

I know too many ‘Keshdhari’ Sikhs who practice none of the above and a good few moné who do quite well. It is impossible to make a relevant voters list of ‘Sikhs’ based either on the status of their hair or on who their parents were.

Looking the part without living the part is useless. If you call yourself an athlete but do not train and do not have a disciplined way of life you are living a lie.

The Gursikh that we should all try to be, regardless of being amritdhari, keshdhari or mona, is like a spiritual athlete. Some of us might reach to Olympic level, others play in the local league, but all should try to get nearer to God by following Guru’s teachings. Going by the Guru Granth Sahib (our eternal teacher) this way of life is not defined by the length of your hair, the length of your kachhera or by any other outward sign.

Walk in hukam, walk with God, be her/his humble child; if you do not see God in all you will not see God at all; be different and look different, these are the kind of  things a Gursikh should practice.

If you wear all or part of the Sikh uniform but have no Sikh behaviour you are like an empty shell. Sikh or Khalsa behaviour without the uniform does has value. Just like good the Muslims and good Yogis that Guru writes about can attain to God, so can good moné. But being ‘pure from outside and dirty inside’ means that you are a hypocrite, and Guru does not like hypocrites at all !

The Tribune – Supreme Court gives SGPC two weeks to reply on Sehajdhari row

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, July 26. The Supreme Court today granted two weeks’ time to the Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) to respond to the contentions of the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation (SSF) that the Sikh temporal body had no right to appeal on the Sehajdharis’ voting rights issue.

A Bench comprising Justices RM Lodha and Anil Dave adjourned the hearing, slated for today, as the SGPC sought time to file its reply.

In its affidavit, the SSF has contended that the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict restoring the Sehajdharis’ voting right had attained finality as the Union Government had decided against challenging the HC judgment.

Further, the SGPC election held on September 18, 2011 had become a nullity as the SC had allowed the conduct of the poll with a clear rider that the election result would be subject to the HC verdict.

Since the HC had quashed the Centre’s October 8, 2003, notification that had taken away the Sehajdharis’ voting rights, it was only proper that a fresh poll was conducted to elect the SGPC, the federation contended.

The SSF pointed out that the SC had refused to allow the newly elected SGPC Board to function and allowed only an ad hoc executive body consisting of members from the previous Board to manage the day-to-day affairs of the SGPC and the institutions run by it.

With no properly elected SGPC in place, no one claiming to be the SGPC could have moved the SC, challenging the HC verdict, SSF said.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120727/main3.htm

The Tribune – Sehajdhari voting row; SC allows new SGPC Board to continue

R Sedhuraman, Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, February 17. The Supreme Court today facilitated the election of office-bearers of the Sikh Gurdwara Prabhandak Committee (SGPC) by allowing the newly-constituted SGPC Board to continue.

A Bench comprising Justices RM Lodha and HL Gokhale passed an order to this effect after a brief hearing on a petition filed by the SGPC challenging the Punjab and Haryana High Court verdict that has restored the voting rights of Sehajdhari Sikhs.

The Bench also issued notice to the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation (SSF), the Union Home Ministry, Punjab government and the Chief Commissioner of Gurdwara Elections seeking their response to the SGPC petition within six weeks.

Arguing for SGPC, senior counsel Harish Salve and counsel Gurminder Singh also sought a stay on the December 20, 2011 HC verdict, pending disposal of its appeal. The Bench, however, ignored this plea.

On the other hand, senior counsel UU Lalit, appearing for the Sehajdhari Sikh Federation, pleaded for fresh elections as the SGPC poll result, declared on September 22, 2011, was subject to the outcome of the HC verdict. While the SGPC election was held without allowing the Sehajdhari Sikhs to vote, the SGPC Board should be elected afresh, he contended.

The SC, however, clarified that this was not possible as the HC judgment had now been challenged. “Suppose we set aside the High Court verdict, what would happen” to the fresh election involving the Sehajdhari Sikhs, the Bench asked.

The Bench heard the case in the form of a “mentioning” (plea for urgent hearing) made by the SGPC, while the SSF was present at the hearing as it had moved a caveat to prevent any relief being given to SGPC without hearing it.

Salve informed the SC that the new SGPC Board, comprising 170 elected members and 15 co-opted members, was notified by the Centre on December 17, 2011. However, the election to the posts of the president, vice-president, junior vice-president and general secretary was not held in view of the HC verdict.

Lalit argued that the Sehajdharis got their right to vote in SGPC election under the Punjab Re-organisation Act 1966 and this could not have been taken away by a Central government notification on October 8, 2003.

The senior counsel also contended that the SSF had sought a stay on the SGPC poll, but both the HC and the SC allowed the poll process to be completed holding that the result would be subject to the outcome of the court case. The SGPC had also accepted this view.

In its appeal, the SGPC said the HC verdict “raises serious issues of law” relating to the power of the Union Government. “It has been the understanding of those well-versed in the tenets of Sikhism that persons, who trim or shave their beard or hair violates one of the cardinal tenets of the Sikh religion and thereby ceases to be a Sikh.”

Once the Sehajdharis were allowed to vote, the doors would be open for persons from other communities, who merely declared their allegiance to the Sikh faith, could claim to be Sikhs and become voters, the petition contended.

The SGPC also pointed out that the HC had “expressly declined to go into the issue of who is a Sikh and whether Sehajdharis, who cut their hair would continue to be Sikhs, but none the less struck down” the Centre’s 2003 notification disenfranchising the Sehajdharis.

While striking down the notification, the HC had not clarified the status of the newly elected SGPC Board.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2012/20120218/main3.htm

The Tribune – Sehajdhari Row; Hearing delayed, Justice Nijjar opts out of case

R Sedhuraman, Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, September 14. The Sehajdhari Sikhs, who were trying to get back their right to vote before the September 18 SGPC poll, suffered another setback today. The Supreme Court could not take up their plea with the withdrawal of Justice S S Nijjar from the case.

The Sehajdhari Sikh Federation’s petition was listed for hearing today by a Bench comprising Justices Altamas Kabir and Nijjar. The federation has challenged the September 6 verdict of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, suspending the HC’s September 1 order that had effectively granted the Sehjdharis the right to vote in the SGPC election.

Shortly after the petition came up for hearing, Justice Nijjar said he would not like to be part of the Bench hearing the case. Apparently, he recused himself from the case as he is a Sehajdhari Sikh. Upon this, an order was passed suggesting that the case be allotted to another Bench at the same time granting liberty to the federation to plead for an urgent hearing of the case.

In its special leave petition, the federation said the Full Bench of the HC could not have suspended the operation of the September 1 order merely on an application filed by the Central Government seeking its recall and without examining the “effect of suspension.”

The Sehjdhari Sikhs also questioned the legal sustainability of the HC order which had denied them their “statutory right” to vote.

The HC had passed the September 1 order on being informed by the Centre’s senior counsel Harbhagwan Singh that the government was withdrawing its October 8, 2003, notification that had taken away the voting rights of Sehjdhari Sikhs. Simultaneously, the HC had disposed of the three petitions filed in 2003 challenging the notification.

However, the Centre filed an application later, contending it had not authorised Harbhagwan to make such a statement in the court. Thus, the Centre sought the recall of the High Court order.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110915/punjab.htm#3