Where Constitutional Question Depends Upon Investigation Of Complicated Questions Of Fact, HC May Dismiss Writ Petition: Sikkim HC Dismisses Plea Alleging Desecration Of Gurudwara
The Sikkim High Court has held that where the determination of the constitutional question depends upon the investigation of complicated questions of fact or of taking evidence, the High Court may dismiss the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court was dealing with a writ petition filed under Article 226 by the petitioners with regard to a dispute that arose in the year 2017.
A Single Bench of Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai said, “In light of the foregoing discussions, it emanates that where the determination of the constitutional question depends upon the investigation of complicated questions of fact or of taking evidence, the High Court may dismiss the application under Article 226 of the Constitution. The issues placed before this Court as put forth in the foregoing Paragraphs require extensive evidence, which falls within the ambit and powers of a Civil Court.”
Senior Advocate A.P.S. Ahluwalia represented the petitioners while Senior Advocate Jorgay Namka, Additional Advocate General Zangpo Sherpa, and Government Advocate Rita Sharma represented the respondents.
In this case, the discord between the petitioners and respondents arose out of the allegations made by the petitioners that, on August 16, 2017, the “Guru Granth Sahib Ji” and other articles of the Sikh faith, placed in the Gurudwara, constructed on the periphery of the Gurudongmar Lake in North Sikkim, was allegedly desecrated by removal from the place of worship. The holy articles were allegedly then abandoned sacrilegiously before the Gurudwara at Chungthang, North Sikkim, thereby depriving the petitioners of their rights to conduct the religious rituals which were imperative preceding such removal. They also alleged removal of the “Nishan Sahib” which was flying at the same place, by the same respondents, causing sacrilege to their place and articles of worship.
Consequent upon the filing of the petition, the Single Bench directed all parties to maintain status quo and the same Court ordered that the interim order shall continue. The Judge further ordered that the interim order shall continue till the disposal of the writ petition. Relevantly, in the interregnum one Amritpal Singh Khalsa was impleaded as Petitioner No.2, in terms of the order of the Court, however, the said Petitioner filed an application and sought to withdraw from the proceedings. By an order of the Single Judge in the year 2020, the name of the Petitioner No.2, as desired by him, was deleted from the array of Petitioners.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case observed, “It is clear herein that amongst others, the title of the land is undetermined, the locus standi of the Petitioner No.1 is in dispute, the dismantling and removal of the articles on 16-08-2017 are in dispute, the articles alleged to have been handed and taken over by the Army to the civilians, respectively, is disputed.”
The Court also noted that the method of removal of the articles is in dispute, the entity of the religious personalities is in dispute. “It requires no reiteration that disputed questions of fact cannot be determined in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution”, added the Court.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Sri Guru Singh Sabha and Another v. The State of Sikkim through the Secretary, Ecclesiastical Department and Others
