The caretakers of Takht Sri Hazur Sahib, Nanded, have issued a gurmata — a binding collective edict — rejecting the Maharashtra government’s proposal to replace the Nanded Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1956, with a new law. Formally read out by Singh Sahib Giani Ram Singh in the presence of Takht jathedar Giani Kulwant Singh, following deliberations involving the Panj Pyare and senior Sikh clergy, and reinforced by SGPC president Harjinder Singh Dhami’s public call to stop the move, this is the most authoritative Panthic response yet to the Takht Sachkhand Shri Hazur Abchalnagar Sahib Gurudwara Bill, 2024—approved by the Maharashtra cabinet, chaired by chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, and slated for the ongoing Vidhan Sabha session.
This is also not the first such attempt. Amendments in 2018, 2019 and February 2024 were all rolled back under Panthic pressure. That history matters: It shows Panthic engagement works, and that the impulse to update this seven-decade-old law will not disappear. The Panth’s real choice is not between the 1956 Act and no change — it is between shaping reform or being sidelined by it.
The reaction is understandable. Replacing a statute that has governed the Fifth Takht since the era of the erstwhile Hyderabad State is no small matter. But the moral authority of the gurmata is most effective when it rests on sound argument. On close examination, the case against the Bill does not hold. Four points need to be made.
State oversight norm
The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee itself operates under government control. The SGPC functions under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 — a colonial statute under which the Punjab government supervises elections, the electoral rolls are prepared under government machinery, the Gurdwara Elections Commission is state-appointed, and the government can supersede the SGPC under defined circumstances. If state involvement in a Sikh institution’s governance constitutes interference by definition, the SGPC stands similarly indicted. No major Sikh gurdwara institution in India operates entirely outside a statutory framework — and therefore outside some measure of government oversight. The question is not whether the government has a role, but whether that role is proportionate and respectful of Sikh religious autonomy.
The Supreme Court has settled the jurisdiction question. Upholding the Haryana Sikh Gurdwara (Management) Act, 2014, the Supreme Court established that the SGPC has no exclusive or constitutionally guaranteed monopoly over historic Sikh gurdwaras — not even within its erstwhile jurisdiction in Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. If its writ does not run unchallenged in Haryana, it cannot be the sole legitimate governing authority for a Takht situated in Maharashtra — a state with its own legislature, its own Sikh community, and its own governance interests.
Winnable demand
The Bill actually balances the interests of Maharashtra’s Sikhs. All 17 board members must be Sikhs. The Nanded collector is a permanent invitee with no voting rights, confined to law and order and traffic — with no say in religious, financial or administrative decisions. Three members are elected from the local sangat (Sikh community) — for the first time in this institution’s history, a genuinely progressive provision. The SGPC retains two nominated seats, though these must be drawn from Maharashtra— nominees can’t be despatched from Amritsar, a reasonable condition. The legitimate criticism is the provision for government nomination of the president and vice-president. The Panth is right to demand this be changed — to election by board members themselves. That is a specific, winnable demand, far more effective than blanket rejection of the entire Bill.
The Jathedar’s position is protected. The Bill does not alter Jathedar Giani Kulwant Singh’s terms of service to his detriment. His retirement age of 60, carried forward from existing arrangements, remains unchanged. Every incoming board member takes an oath before him in the presence of Sri Guru Granth Sahib. The SGPC’s influence over maryada — religious code and conduct — remains what it has always been: Spiritual and moral, not administrative.
Facing harder truth
There is also a harder truth. Around 2000, with the Shiromani Akali Dal in the NDA coalition at the Centre, an All India Gurdwara Act — which could have placed Hazur Sahib, Patna Sahib and Damdama Sahib under unified Panthic governance, insulated from state politics — was within reach. Three drafts were prepared. Nothing came of it. That window is permanently closed. Haryana has its own gurdwara body, upheld by the Supreme Court. Delhi has its own statute. Maharashtra will now have its own. Invoking state interference while having declined to build the legal architecture that would have prevented it is a contradiction the Panth must honestly confront.
Three specific amendments would transform this Bill: Election rather than government nomination of the president and vice-president; restoration of the SGPC’s representation to four members; and resolution of the Sehajdhari voting rights question — left unresolved by the Bill’s Keshdhari-only voter qualification. The Maharashtra government rolled back a far more draconian amendment in 2024 under Panthic pressure. It can be pressed further. The gurmata carries moral weight. But moral authority directed with precision — at specific, correctable provisions — will achieve more than blanket opposition.
The Panth must have the first word in substance. The Maharashtra legislature will have the last word in law. kbs.sidhu@gmail.com
The writer is a retired Punjab-cadre IAS officer who superannuated as special chief secretary of the state. Views expressed are personal.
