J&K High Court Affirms Singh or Kour Surnames Not Mandatory for Sikh Identity

JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT HC LAW INSIDER IN
JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT HC LAW INSIDER IN

LI Network

Published on: January 17, 2024 at 10:00 IST

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has clarified that having “Singh” or “Kour” as surnames is not obligatory for individuals to be recognized as Sikh, dismissing a plea challenging the Gurudwara Committee election.

The case was brought before the Court as a petition contesting the elections to the District Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee (DGPC) in Akhnoor, alleging the inclusion of non-Sikh voters on the electoral rolls. The petitioner argued that these voters lacked the surname ‘Singh’ or ‘Kour.’

After the statutory appellate authority rejected the plea, the petitioner escalated the matter to the High Court.

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, citing the J&K Sikh Gurudwara & Religious Endowment Act, 1973, remarked, “The contention of the petitioner… is contrary to the definition laid down in the Act of 1973, which is not acceptable and the same cannot be sustainable in the eyes of the law. There are many people, who do not have ‘Sikh or Kour’ as their Sir names, but still, they are recognized as Sikh, as they preach Sikhism.”

The petitioner, who contested and lost the DGPC election, challenged the results on various grounds, asserting that the electoral roll included non-Sikhs identified by the absence of “Singh” or “Kour” in their surnames.

The Court addressed the petitioner’s arguments by scrutinizing the applicable rules and affirmed that the appellate authority rightly rejected them as contradictory to the definitions in the Act of 1973.

Rejecting the contention that “Singh and Kour” surnames should be mandatory for Sikh recognition, the court emphasized that such a stance contradicted legal definitions.

Justice Nargal highlighted that the petitioner failed to raise objections regarding the electoral roll during the specified claims and objections period. Raising these issues post-election participation was deemed impermissible by the court.

Describing the case as unique, the court upheld the appellate authority’s order, dismissing the appeal as lacking merit and substance.

Related Post