The Punjab and Haryana High Court has clarified that a charitable trust established by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) with complete structural and financial control by SGPC, and whose assets ultimately revert to a Gurdwara, constitutes 'Gurdwara property' under the Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 2014. This ruling resolves a critical ambiguity regarding the scope of state authority over institutions created under religious endowments.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Miri Piri Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Charitable Trust, was established by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) on 08.12.2005 to set up a medical college and hospital in Shahabad, Kurukshetra, Haryana. The Trust was created as part of the commemoration of the 400th anniversary of the compilation of the Guru Granth Sahib. The SGPC granted 20 acres of land from Shri Mastgarh Sahib Gurdwara and 5 acres from Sri Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar, on 99-year leases to the Trust. The Trust constructed a 500-bed hospital and commenced operations on 23.08.2006. The Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee (respondent No.2), constituted under the Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 2014, issued a communication on 04.09.2024 constituting a Medical Board to oversee the Trust’s functioning. The petitioner challenged this communication as an unlawful interference.
Key Facts
- The Trust was incorporated on 08.12.2005 via a Trust Deed executed by SGPC.
- The President of SGPC is the ex-officio Chairman of the Trust and the Founder.
- The Executive Committee of SGPC appoints all Trustees, including filling vacancies.
- The Trust’s head office is located within the premises of SGPC, Amritsar.
- SGPC has provided ₹111.30 Crores in grants to the Trust since its inception.
- The Trust’s land remains owned by SGPC and its affiliated Gurdwaras; the Trust holds only leasehold rights.
- Clause 8(iv) of the Trust Deed mandates that upon dissolution, all remaining assets shall vest in Sri Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar.
- The Trust was created to comply with Medical Council of India regulations requiring medical colleges to be established by a registered society or public trust.
- The Trust’s Board of Trustees consists of 5 - 15 members, all appointed by SGPC.
- The Trust has no independent funding source; all capital and operational expenses are borne by SGPC.
Procedural History
- 08.12.2005: Establishment of Miri Piri Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Charitable Trust via Trust Deed.
- 23.08.2006: Hospital and medical college commenced operations.
- 2009: Division Bench of this Court upheld the legality of SGPC’s creation of the Trust in Miri Piri College Bachao Sangharsh Samiti v. SGPC (2009 SCC OnLine P&H 5325).
- 18.07.2014: Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 2014 came into force.
- 20.09.2022: Supreme Court upheld the validity of the 2014 Act in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Haryana (2023) 11 SCC 648.
- 04.09.2024: Respondent No.2 issued communication constituting a Medical Board to oversee the Trust.
- 25.11.2024: Writ Petition (CWP-25750-2024) filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
- 08.05.2026: Case reserved for judgment.
- 12.05.2026: Judgment pronounced dismissing the petition.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner: The Trust is an independent legal entity, not a Gurdwara or Gurdwara property. It was created to comply with statutory requirements for medical education and operates autonomously. The 2014 Act does not empower the Committee to interfere with non-Gurdwara institutions. The Trust’s assets are not owned by SGPC but held under lease, and its governance, though influenced, is not controlled by SGPC.
For the Respondent: The Trust was created by SGPC as an instrumentality to discharge its charitable obligations under the 1925 Act. All Trustees are appointed by SGPC, funding originates from SGPC, the head office is within SGPC premises, and upon dissolution, assets revert to a Gurdwara. Thus, the Trust’s property is effectively SGPC property and falls within the definition of ‘Gurdwara property’ under Section 2(f) of the 2014 Act.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the communication dated 04.09.2024, a declaration that the respondent has no authority to interfere in the Trust’s affairs, and a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from constituting any board or committee to oversee the Trust’s functioning.
The Legal Issue
Whether property held by a charitable trust, created and fully controlled by the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC), funded by SGPC, and whose assets revert to a Gurdwara upon dissolution, qualifies as ‘Gurdwara property’ under Section 2(f) of the Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 2014.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner relied on the 2009 Division Bench judgment in Miri Piri College Bachao Sangharsh Samiti, which recognized the Trust as a legitimate instrumentality created to comply with the Medical Council of India’s regulations. It argued that a trust, once legally constituted, acquires independent legal personality under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The Trust’s assets are not owned by SGPC but held under lease, and its governance, though influenced, is not subject to day-to-day control. The 2014 Act’s definition of ‘Gurdwara property’ requires direct management or control by a Gurdwara, which the Trust does not have. The petitioner also contended that the respondent’s action violates the principle of separation of powers and the autonomy of charitable institutions.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the Trust was not created to achieve independence but to circumvent statutory restrictions on direct establishment of medical institutions by SGPC. The Trust’s entire structure - appointment of Trustees, funding, location of head office, and ultimate disposition of assets - demonstrates that it is a mere extension of SGPC. The 2014 Act’s definition of ‘Gurdwara property’ includes any property held by an institution that was regulated under the 1925 Act, regardless of formal ownership. The Supreme Court’s validation of the 2014 Act in Harbhajan Singh affirmed the state’s power to consolidate control over all religious endowments previously managed by SGPC. The Trust’s assets, therefore, vest in the Committee under Section 54(c) of the 2014 Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed textual and contextual analysis of Section 2(f) of the 2014 Act, which defines ‘Gurdwara property’ as:
“(i) all movable and immovable property of a Gurdwara or any institution which, immediately before the appointed day vested or was kept in deposit in the name of any Board, Trust, Committee, Gurdwara Management or was being regulated under the provisions of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 or rules made thereunder...”
The Court emphasized that the conjunctive ‘or’ in the definition allows for two alternative conditions: (a) property held in the name of a Trust, or (b) property regulated under the 1925 Act. The Trust in question was clearly established under the 1925 Act’s umbrella, as confirmed by the 2009 judgment, which held that SGPC’s creation of the Trust was a legitimate exercise of its powers under Section 127 and 130 of the 1925 Act.
The Court further noted that the Trust’s governance structure was not independent. The President of SGPC is the ex-officio Chairman; all Trustees are appointed by SGPC’s Executive Committee; the head office is located within SGPC premises; and the Trust’s assets, upon dissolution, are mandated to vest in Sri Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar - a Gurdwara under SGPC’s control. The Court drew a parallel to a wholly owned subsidiary, stating:
“In the sense of Companies Act, it can be called a limited company whose 100% share capital and composition of Board of Directors is controlled by one person or a family.”
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the Trust’s independent legal personality under the Trusts Act, 1882, negated its classification as Gurdwara property. It held that legal personality does not equate to functional or financial autonomy. The Trust’s existence was contingent on SGPC’s will, and its purpose was to facilitate SGPC’s charitable obligations under the 1925 Act.
The Court also examined Clause 8(iv) of the Trust Deed, which provides for the reversion of assets to Sri Harmandir Sahib. This provision, the Court held, is not a mere contingency but a structural feature demonstrating that the Trust is a conduit for SGPC’s religious endowments.
Finally, the Court observed that the petitioner’s petition was filed by a Chief Executive Officer without any resolution from the Board of Trustees, raising questions about the locus standi of the petitioner. The absence of any documented meeting or resolution of the Trustees further undermined the petitioner’s claim of autonomy.
The Verdict
The petition was dismissed. The Court held that the property of the Miri Piri Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Charitable Trust qualifies as ‘Gurdwara property’ under Section 2(f) of the Haryana Sikh Gurdwaras (Management) Act, 2014. The respondent, Haryana Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, is therefore entitled to constitute a Medical Board for its upliftment and functioning. The communication dated 04.09.2024 is upheld. The petitioner’s claim of autonomy is rejected. No monetary relief was granted as the petition was for injunctive relief only.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Religious Trusts with SGPC Control Are Subject to State Oversight
- Practitioners must now treat any charitable trust created by SGPC with appointed trustees, funded by SGPC, and whose assets revert to a Gurdwara as ‘Gurdwara property’ under the 2014 Act.
- Legal challenges to state interference in such trusts will face a high threshold - autonomy claims based on Trust Deed provisions will be overridden if structural control remains with SGPC.
Creation of Entities to Evade Regulation Is Not Permissible
- The judgment confirms that using a trust structure to comply with external regulations (e.g., Medical Council) does not negate the underlying control of the religious body.
- Courts will look beyond formal incorporation to assess functional control, funding, and asset reversion.
Due Process in Trust Governance Is Critical
- Petitions filed by officers of a trust without a formal resolution from the Board of Trustees may be dismissed for lack of locus standi.
- Practitioners must ensure that all legal actions by trusts are authorized by documented trustee resolutions to avoid procedural defects.
