M A I N   N E W S

Punjab notification on Sikh judicial panel quashed
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 14
The Congress government in Punjab today suffered a major political setback after the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed a notification issued on July 5 last year whereby the previously constituted Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission was ordered to be restored. The text of the judgement was not available.

The development is politically significant as the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) and another petitioner had earlier alleged that the Congress government had issued the impugned notification as a part of its design to enable Mr G.S. Tohra regain his "lost position". At that time, Mr Tohra was heading a parallel Akali Dal.

Initially, Mr Dara Singh, Mr Kashmir Singh and Mr Raghbir Singh were functioning as members of the Judicial Commission. It was re-constituted after the SGPC elections through a notification issued on January 6, 1999. Subsequently, Mr Manmohan Singh Brar, Mr Ajwant Singh Mann and Mr Amrik Singh were appointed as the Judicial Commission members. Through the impugned notification, the notification regarding their appointment was rescinded and the earlier commission was restored.

Today, coming down heavily on the state for offending the "settled principles of law", a Division Bench of the High Court, comprising Mr Justice Swatanter Kumar and Mr Justice Viney Mittal, ruled: "We are unable to persuade ourselves to hold that the impugned notification was issued in a reasonable exercise of power. We are also of the considered view that the action of the state in issuing the notification dated July 5, 2002, is a faux pas. Furthermore, it is a colourable exercise of power and offends the settled principles of law".

The Judges further ruled: "The issuance of the notification patently suffers from the element of non-application of mind. No plausible reason has been stated in the notification or in the reply on behalf of the state. No records have been produced before us which can enlighten the court as to the reason and the causes leading to the issuance of the notification".

In their detailed order, the Judges held: "If the government was of the opinion that the members were not competent or had violated the conditions or were not eligible, it could take action for the removal of the members. The expression `in restoring the earlier commission' is an expression which conveys no meaning...."

The Judges further held: "The notification has admittedly been issued when the matter was pending pronouncement of judgement before a larger Bench.... It appears that the notification was primarily issued to cause an interference in the administration of justice and was not quite a healthy practice adopted by the state administration.

Speaking for the Bench, Mr Justice Kumar observed: "The power of a government to issue such a notification can hardly be questioned in the light of the enunciated law, but such powers should be essentially exercised fairly, judiciously and in conformity with the spirit of the Constitution, which the state has failed to adhere in the present case.”

Challenging the notification, the petitioner had sought its quashing. Going into the background, the petitioner had contended that on January 6, 1999, a notification was issued removing Mr Dara Singh, Mr Kashmir Singh and Mr Raghbir Singh as members of the Judicial Commission and appointing other members in their place. Mr Dara Singh and Mr Kashmir Singh subsequently filed a petition in the High Court challenging their removal and appointment of other members. The matter was referred by a Division Bench of the High Court to a larger Bench. The judgement was reserved after the conclusion of the arguments.

However, during the assembly elections in February, Mr Tohra joined hands with the Congress party. To enable Mr Tohra regain his lost position, the Congress government issued the impugned notification.