The legal decision
High Court says unshorn hair integral to Sikh, but much larger threat looms now
Sach Kanwal Singh
CHANDIGARH: At a most poignant juncture of history when the Sikh quom is observing 25th year of the most dastardly attack on Sri Darbar Sahib, Sri Akal Takht and many other centres of Sikhism, and has watched the Indian machinations to save those guilty of leading killer mobs in 1984 that tracked, hunted, killed, maimed, looted and burnt alive hundreds of Sikhs, a superior court has now given a judgement that ostensibly will go far in furthering the struggle for Sikh identity.
But there is much more to the issue than meets the eye, as is always the case when it comes to Indian machinations.
In a major victory of sorts for the Sikh community, a three judge bench of the the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled last Saturday that retaining unshorn hair is one of the most important and fundamental tenets of the Sikh religion, and the SGPC was fully justified in denying admission to a Sikh girl who plucked her eyebrows.
In its 154 page voluminous judgment, Justices J.S.Khehar, Jasbir Singh and Ajay Kumar Mittal upheld the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee precondition for maintaining ‘Sikh Swarup’ by students seeking admission under the Sikh minority community quota in institutions run by the religious body.
WSN's Interventionist Role
At one stage, the World Sikh News had to make a direct intervention to blow a cover from a deeply entrenched conspiracy under which the SGPC was misguided to take a pertinently wrong stance over unshorn hair. From behind the scenes, Punjab Advocate General HS Mattewal and his son Pavit Mattewal, in collaboration with certain elements from within the Sikh community, were able to prevail upon the SGPC to submit a highly controversial affidavit on December 5 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court when the court had asked the SGPC to define whether someone can cut his hair and still be considered a Sehaddhari Sikh.
Pavit, himself a clean shaven patit Sikh and a Legal Advisor to CM Parkash Singh Badal, had become a party in the case and had advocated that a Sehajdhari can keep trimming/cutting his hair. His father, a close chum of the ruling Badals, had earlier written articles in leading dailies advocating the right of vote for Sehajdharis, something opposed tooth and nail by the SGPC and the Sikh community as a whole.
The impugned affidavit virtually allowed those trimming/cutting their hair to be counted as Sehajdharis till they declared themselves to be Keshadharis. Later, after a coverted campaign by the WSN and a some public spirited Sikhs, the SGPC admitted massive bungling in the process leading to submission of that affidavit, sacked Sikh History Research Board Director Anurag Singh, and set up an inquiry committee to probe how the impugned affidavit came to be submitted in the High Court. Later, the SGPC submitted a new affidavit that was taken on record by the Full Bench. But the report of the probe committee never saw the light of the day.
Students whom the Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, had denied admission in MBBS on account of their trimming the beard and plucking eyebrows had tried to hide behind a facade that unshorn hair were not integral to being a Sikh.
The case saw SGPC being asked to define the term Sehajdhari, a task it messed up at one stage when the WSN was forced to expose a malicious affidavit as also the role of some prominent people, including that of Pavit Mattewal, CM Parkash Singh Badal's legal advisor and son of Advocate General H S Mattewal.
The Bench fully justified the requirement of retaining hair unshorn as a precondition for eligibility under the Sikh minority community quota.
“If the said religious community wishes to enforce the aforesaid norm as a precondition for admission, there is nothing wrong about it.” Speaking for the Bench, Justice Khehar said in this case, the sole consideration before the Bench was whether or not keeping hair unshorn was an important fundamental tenet of the Sikh religion.
“…Thus viewed,on the basis of the undisputed factual position, that all the petitioners indulg in trimming their hair or plucking hair of their eyebrows, they can legitimately be denied of a benefit otherwise available to Sikhs,” the Bench said.
“…We have repeatedly concluded…that retaining bodily hair unshorn is one of the most essential tenets of the Sikh religion. And as such, if a Sikh organisation or body decides not to extend any benefit,which is otherwise available to a Sikh,to a person who does not maintain his hair unshorn, its determination would be perfectly legitimate.”
“For the present controversy, we…hold that retaining hair unshorn is one of the most important and fundamental tenets of the Sikh religion. In fact, it is undoubtedly a part of the religious consciousness of the Sikh faith.”
The historical background of the Sikh religion, legislative enactments involving the Sikh religion, the Sikh ‘rehat maryada’, the Sikh ‘ardas’and views expressed by scholars of Sikhism, the Bench ruled, led to “one unambiguous answer, that maintaining hair unshorn is an essential component of the Sikh religion.” The Bench stated that under the Sikh ‘rehat maryada’, a Sikh is not permitted to dishonour hair, or even to harbour any antipathy to hair of the head with which a child is born. Dyeing one’s hair is considered to be an act of dishonouring hair.
The Judges pointed out that “it may be a matter of surprise,” that in their conclusion on the controversy, the Bench did not refer to the Guru Granth Sahib as the “basis of our determination.” The code of conduct is strictly contained in the Sikh ‘rehat maryada.
In this case, which saw marathon hearings, several advocates, like Rajiv Atma Ram, K.T.S. Tulsi, R.T.P.S.Tulsi, H.S. Phoolka, D.S.Patwalia, Anupam Gupta, Chetan Mittal, Gurminder Singh, Dr M.S. Rahi, Deepak Sibal and Navkiran Singh pleaded the case.
3 June 2009
High Court says unshorn hair integral to Sikh, but much larger threat looms now
Sach Kanwal Singh
CHANDIGARH: At a most poignant juncture of history when the Sikh quom is observing 25th year of the most dastardly attack on Sri Darbar Sahib, Sri Akal Takht and many other centres of Sikhism, and has watched the Indian machinations to save those guilty of leading killer mobs in 1984 that tracked, hunted, killed, maimed, looted and burnt alive hundreds of Sikhs, a superior court has now given a judgement that ostensibly will go far in furthering the struggle for Sikh identity.But there is much more to the issue than meets the eye, as is always the case when it comes to Indian machinations.
In a major victory of sorts for the Sikh community, a three judge bench of the the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled last Saturday that retaining unshorn hair is one of the most important and fundamental tenets of the Sikh religion, and the SGPC was fully justified in denying admission to a Sikh girl who plucked her eyebrows.
In its 154 page voluminous judgment, Justices J.S.Khehar, Jasbir Singh and Ajay Kumar Mittal upheld the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee precondition for maintaining ‘Sikh Swarup’ by students seeking admission under the Sikh minority community quota in institutions run by the religious body.
WSN's Interventionist Role
At one stage, the World Sikh News had to make a direct intervention to blow a cover from a deeply entrenched conspiracy under which the SGPC was misguided to take a pertinently wrong stance over unshorn hair. From behind the scenes, Punjab Advocate General HS Mattewal and his son Pavit Mattewal, in collaboration with certain elements from within the Sikh community, were able to prevail upon the SGPC to submit a highly controversial affidavit on December 5 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court when the court had asked the SGPC to define whether someone can cut his hair and still be considered a Sehaddhari Sikh.
Pavit, himself a clean shaven patit Sikh and a Legal Advisor to CM Parkash Singh Badal, had become a party in the case and had advocated that a Sehajdhari can keep trimming/cutting his hair. His father, a close chum of the ruling Badals, had earlier written articles in leading dailies advocating the right of vote for Sehajdharis, something opposed tooth and nail by the SGPC and the Sikh community as a whole.
The impugned affidavit virtually allowed those trimming/cutting their hair to be counted as Sehajdharis till they declared themselves to be Keshadharis. Later, after a coverted campaign by the WSN and a some public spirited Sikhs, the SGPC admitted massive bungling in the process leading to submission of that affidavit, sacked Sikh History Research Board Director Anurag Singh, and set up an inquiry committee to probe how the impugned affidavit came to be submitted in the High Court. Later, the SGPC submitted a new affidavit that was taken on record by the Full Bench. But the report of the probe committee never saw the light of the day.
Students whom the Guru Ram Das Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Amritsar, had denied admission in MBBS on account of their trimming the beard and plucking eyebrows had tried to hide behind a facade that unshorn hair were not integral to being a Sikh.
The case saw SGPC being asked to define the term Sehajdhari, a task it messed up at one stage when the WSN was forced to expose a malicious affidavit as also the role of some prominent people, including that of Pavit Mattewal, CM Parkash Singh Badal's legal advisor and son of Advocate General H S Mattewal.
The Bench fully justified the requirement of retaining hair unshorn as a precondition for eligibility under the Sikh minority community quota.
“If the said religious community wishes to enforce the aforesaid norm as a precondition for admission, there is nothing wrong about it.” Speaking for the Bench, Justice Khehar said in this case, the sole consideration before the Bench was whether or not keeping hair unshorn was an important fundamental tenet of the Sikh religion.
“…Thus viewed,on the basis of the undisputed factual position, that all the petitioners indulg in trimming their hair or plucking hair of their eyebrows, they can legitimately be denied of a benefit otherwise available to Sikhs,” the Bench said.
“For the present controversy, we…hold that retaining hair unshorn is one of the most important and fundamental tenets of the Sikh religion. In fact, it is undoubtedly a part of the religious consciousness of the Sikh faith.”
The historical background of the Sikh religion, legislative enactments involving the Sikh religion, the Sikh ‘rehat maryada’, the Sikh ‘ardas’and views expressed by scholars of Sikhism, the Bench ruled, led to “one unambiguous answer, that maintaining hair unshorn is an essential component of the Sikh religion.” The Bench stated that under the Sikh ‘rehat maryada’, a Sikh is not permitted to dishonour hair, or even to harbour any antipathy to hair of the head with which a child is born. Dyeing one’s hair is considered to be an act of dishonouring hair.
The Judges pointed out that “it may be a matter of surprise,” that in their conclusion on the controversy, the Bench did not refer to the Guru Granth Sahib as the “basis of our determination.” The code of conduct is strictly contained in the Sikh ‘rehat maryada.
In this case, which saw marathon hearings, several advocates, like Rajiv Atma Ram, K.T.S. Tulsi, R.T.P.S.Tulsi, H.S. Phoolka, D.S.Patwalia, Anupam Gupta, Chetan Mittal, Gurminder Singh, Dr M.S. Rahi, Deepak Sibal and Navkiran Singh pleaded the case.
3 June 2009
