Elec­tions to the Takht Hazur Sahib Board are pend­ing since March 2022. In a glar­ing dis­play of de­fi­ance against the ju­di­ciary, the Ma­ha­rash­tra gov­ern­ment once again cheated the Sikhs and re­sorted to sub­terfuge to de­lay elec­tions to the Takht Hazur Sahib Board. De­spite ex­plicit di­rec­tives from the Bom­bay High Court, the state has shown a per­sis­tent re­luc­tance to ini­ti­ate the elec­toral process, draw­ing sharp rep­ri­mands from the ju­di­ciary. WSN ed­i­tor Jag­mo­han Singh ex­am­ines the fault-lines of the Ma­ha­rash­tra gov­ern­ment and the sin­is­ter pat­tern that emerges.

On the 5 April hear­ing of the con­tempt pro­ceed­ings filed by pe­ti­tioner-Nam­bar­dar Jagdeep Singh against the Rev­enue Sec­re­tary for ig­nor­ing or­ders re­lat­ing to con­duct of elec­tions to the Takht Hazur Sahib Board, Judges Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme of the Au­rangabad bench of the Bom­bay High Court rapped the State of Ma­ha­rash­tra on its knuck­les chastis­ing them for de­lay in the Gur­d­wara Board Elec­tions.

At the hear­ing viewed by WSN on­line, the pre­sid­ing judge in open court chas­tised the gov­ern­ment of Ma­ha­rash­tra as be­ing in­sin­cere and un­will­ing to con­duct the elec­tions. The gov­ern­ment coun­sel was at sea to ex­plain the de­lay­ing tac­tics of the gov­ern­ment and once again re­lied upon the ex­cuse that the gov­ern­ment was con­tem­plat­ing the en­act­ment of new leg­is­la­tion in the mat­ter and that a com­mit­tee for the same had been formed, but the model code of con­duct was in force. The judges brushed aside this logic and wanted to know what steps had been taken to start the elec­tion process, say­ing that they were “in­ter­ested to know about the elec­tions un­der the ex­ist­ing law.”

The State is in­sin­cere about con­duct­ing elec­tions to the Takht Hazur Sahib Board and is hid­ing be­hind the fa­cade of a new pro­posed law. We are con­cerned about elec­tions un­der the ex­ist­ing pro­vi­sions

Jus­tice Mangesh S. Patil and Jus­tice Shailesh P. Brahme , Bom­bay High Court, Au­rangabad Bench

Coun­ter­ing the ar­gu­ment of the gov­ern­ment pleader, the coun­sel for the pe­ti­tioner -Ad­vo­cate Wasif Sheikh con­tended that the State gov­ern­ment is now not con­sid­er­ing the pro­mul­ga­tion of a new Act as it has back­tracked af­ter mas­sive protests of the Sikh com­mu­nity in Nanded and else­where. He pro­duced the no­ti­fi­ca­tion of the Ma­ha­rash­tra gov­ern­ment putting the pro­posal of the new Act on hold.

The next court hear­ing in the Au­rangabad Bench of the Bom­bay High Court is slated for 26 April.

“Ex­pect­ing good sense to pre­vail,” the judges had given a two-week re­prieve last month, but though the joint sec­re­tary ap­peared in per­son, tak­ing cog­nizance of the fact that the state had not moved an inch and no di­rec­tions were given to him, the judges have now sum­moned the Dis­trict Col­lec­tor, Nanded as un­der Sec­tion 6 of the Nanded Sikh Gu­rud­wara Sachk­hand Shri Hazur Apchal­na­gar Sahib Act, 1956 read with Rule 3, the Dis­trict Col­lec­tor was re­spon­si­ble for ini­ti­at­ing the elec­tion process in the year 2021, be­fore the ex­piry of the term of the Board in March 2022.

Even on 18 March 2024, the judges made scathing re­marks about the role of the state. The or­der noted that “In spite of strongly worded min­utes recorded by us on 18.01.2024, the learned A.G.P. is blank. He does not seem to have re­ceived any in­struc­tions re­gard­ing a di­rec­tion to the Col­lec­tor, Nanded, for com­mence­ment of the elec­tion process pur­suant to Sec­tion 8 of the Nanded Sikh Gu­rud­wara Sachk­hand Shri Hazur Apchal­na­gar Sahib Act, 1956, read with Rule 3 of the Elec­tion Rules.”

Ear­lier, in the 18 Jan­u­ary or­der, Judges Mangesh S. Patil and Shailesh P. Brahme had nailed the lies of the gov­ern­ment say­ing, “We can­not com­pre­hend a sit­u­a­tion where in spite of the statute, rules and even the elec­tion rules be­ing in place, the Gov­ern­ment could base on some com­mit­tee’s rec­om­men­da­tion, with­out the pro­vi­sions of the statute hav­ing been sus­pended, has been tak­ing ex­cep­tion to the pro­vi­sions and has been con­tin­u­ing the prac­tice of ap­point­ing ad­min­is­tra­tors are af­ter the other with­out tak­ing steps to con­sti­tute the man­ag­ing com­mit­tee by hold­ing elec­tions.”

The judges had fur­ther ob­served, “This is highly un­be­com­ing of the State. It is not clear as to if as ob­served in para­graph no. 6 of the or­der, of which im­ple­men­ta­tion is be­ing sought, the State had is­sued in­struc­tions to the Col­lec­tor, Nanded to start the process of elec­tion in the year 2021. Even be­fore the Court which passed the or­der it was made to be­lieve that the Chief Min­is­ter was to take the de­ci­sion and would take it at the ear­li­est. This or­der was passed on 27.03.2023. Al­most a year is over there­after.”

In the main pe­ti­tion of Jagdeep Singh ver­sus The State of Ma­ha­rash­tra, Jus­tice S. G. Cha­pal­gaonkar and Jus­tice Nitin W. Sam­bre on 27 March 2023 had di­rected the State of Ma­ha­rash­tra to start the process of con­duct­ing elec­tions. The judges said, “….in our opin­ion, it will be ap­pro­pri­ate to di­rect re­spon­dent – State Gov­ern­ment to take de­ci­sion about the elec­tion of the mem­bers to the Board of re­spon­dent no.3 (Takht Hazur Sahib Board) in any case within a pe­riod of three months from to­day.”

The on­go­ing saga re­flects a trou­bling pat­tern of in­ter­fer­ence in the af­fairs of the Takht Hazur Sahib Board by the Ma­ha­rash­tra gov­ern­ment, rais­ing ques­tions about its re­spect for ju­di­cial man­dates and the au­ton­omy of re­li­gious in­sti­tu­tions. The next hear­ing, sched­uled for April 26, is ea­gerly awaited by the Sikh com­mu­nity and ob­servers alike, who hope for a res­o­lu­tion that hon­ors both the law and the rich tra­di­tions of the Takht Hazur Sahib.

“Un­doubt­edly it is frus­trat­ing, but we will not take it ly­ing down. We will fight it tooth and nail. When the need arises, we will take up the mat­ter in the Supreme Court. We will cre­ate aware­ness and if need be take to the streets again to con­test our le­git­i­mate and fun­da­men­tal rights.”

Nam­bar­dar Jagdeep Singh, Pe­ti­tioner

Tired of the role of the Gov­ern­ment of Ma­ha­rash­tra in scut­tling the elec­toral process, pe­ti­tioner Jagdeep Singh, while speak­ing to The World Sikh News said, “Un­doubt­edly it is frus­trat­ing, but we will not take it ly­ing down. We will fight it tooth and nail. When the need arises, we will take up the mat­ter in the Supreme Court. We will cre­ate aware­ness and if need be take to the streets again to con­test our le­git­i­mate and fun­da­men­tal rights.”

Since the pas­sage of the Nanded Sikh Gu­rud­wara Sachk­hand Sri Hazur Apchal­na­gar Sahib Act, 1956, there has not been a sin­gle oc­ca­sion when the elec­tions to the Takht Sri Hazur Sahib Board have been held on time. Un­der one pre­text or an­other, elec­tions are de­layed, through acts of omis­sion and com­mis­sion.

As the le­gal bat­tle un­folds, the Sikh com­mu­ni­ty’s frus­tra­tion with the gov­ern­men­t’s han­dling of the elec­tions be­comes in­creas­ingly pal­pa­ble, cast­ing a shadow over the state’s com­mit­ment to up­hold­ing the prin­ci­ples of democ­racy and re­li­gious free­dom.