Supreme Court: Maharashtra Government cannot arrogate the power of nomination to itself against the Statute

The SC on Aug 20, 2020 {Sardar Bahginder Singh vs Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh and Ors.} held that the nomination and election of members under Section 6 of the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956 has to be made in the manner prescribed by the rules made by the Government under the Act, including the bye-laws made by the statutory board constituted under the provisions of Chapter II.

It was further observed by the SC Bench, comprising of Justice D Y Chandrachud & K M Joseph, that the High Court was justified in disapproving of the process that was followed by the State Government but for the simple reason that the nominations were not made by the Diwan. It was held that Multiple claims were made in the letters submitted to the State Government. It was held that the High Court was correct in its interpretation of the statute when it observed that it was not open to the State Government to arrogate the power of nomination to itself or to usurp the powers of the Diwan. It was held that the statute has entrusted the authority to make a nomination under Section 6(1)(viii) to the Diwan. It was held that the Diwan comprises of the collective body of all members together to whom the power to make a nomination is entrusted. 

In the present case, the SC was considering the dispute qua nomination of four members of the Diwan on the statutory Board constituted in terms of the Section 5 of the Nanded Sikh Gurudwara Sachkhand Shri Hazur Apchalnagar Sahib Act 1956.

The SC concluded that in authorising the Sachkhand Hazuri Khalsa Diwan, Nanded to nominate four members, Section 6(1)(viii) entrusts that authority to the collective body of members of the Diwan which is entitled to select the four individuals to be nominated to the statutory Board. It was directed by the SC that the process must be initiated forthwith and concluded within a period of three months from the date of this judgment. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.