# KASHMIR SINGH I • v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS - **Citation:** [2008] 8 S.C.R. 464 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2008-05-13 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7024 Of 2002 - **Bench:** S.S. Sinha, V. S. Sirpurkar - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kashmir-singh-i-v-union-of-india-ors-24709 - **Pages:** 36 ## Headnote Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925: c Purpose of enactment - Held: To provide for the better administration of Sikh Gurdwaras and for inquiries into matters connected therewith - State Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. ss. 40, 70 and 83 - Tenure of member of Commission - D Held: A member of commission cannot claim appointment in perpetuity - s.40 provides for constitution of Judicial Commission from time to time - Even in terms of s. 70, members are to be appointed from time to time - It is not correct to say that tenure is for whole life of member as it would be violative E of Article 16 of Constitution - Also, for giving meaningful construction to provisions, Court is bound to take into consideration situational change - In view of this, meaning which could be attributed in the year 1925 cannot be given the same meaning today - The Act is an ongoing one - Thus must be interF preted differently as the Court cannot ignore the ground realities - The doctrine of 'independence of judiciary' has no ap- ' plication - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16 Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 16, 310- Held: Does not envisage holding of any office in perpetuity-Article 310 of G the Constitution of India provides for a tenure - It does not contemplate a life tenure -Article 16 of Constitution speaks of grant of equal opportunity to all - Allowing a person to hold public • office indefinitely would be opposed to the constitutional scheme, irrespective of any misconduct or other contingencies. H 464 .t ) KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 465 & ORS. Interpretation of statutes : Statute must be read in its entirety- It must then be read part by part, chapter by chapter, section by section and then clause by clause. A Violation of constitutional provisions - In construing a. B statute, an interpretation which would lead to violation of the constitutional provisions; cannot be taken recourse to. Societal changes - While construing an ongoing statute superior court must take into consideration the changes in the societal condition. C Purposive construction - If the statute has to be read keeping in view the constitutional schemes and make it workable, the provisions thereof are required to be given a purposive construction - For the said purpose, even the past prac0 tice as also the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act can be looked into. Approbate and reprobate - Appellant questioned validity of Notification dated 6th January, 1999 on the premise that Chief Minister of the State had acted ma/a fide - Appellant again appointed as Chairman of the Commission by a Notification dated 17th March, 2605 - Notification used the words "Reconstitution of the Commission" - He, therefore, is a functionary thereof - Thus, he cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: Central Government issued notification dated 19. 10. 1978 nominating State of Punjab for exercising its power under 1966 Act - Held: By reason of notification dated 19. 10. 1978, Central Government has not delegated its power - The 1966 Act has an extra-territorial application - No law has been enacted either by State of Haryana or by State of Himachal Pradesh - In absence of any law having been enacted to contrary, functions under 1966 Act must be performed by some authority -Central Government with consent of State of Haryana has merely nominated 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A State of Punjab to do so - When power has been conferred upon State of Punjab by the Central Government, it exercises a statutory power- It would, therefore, not case where the functions of State Government must be held to be confined to its territorial jurisdiction - Articles 245 or 246 or for that matter, B Articles 73 and 172 of Constitution will have no application - The ground of excessive delegation of power, thus, does not arise - Administrative law - Delegation of powers - Constitu- . tion of India, 1950 - Articles 73 and 172. The Si ## Text _Characters 0–39,837 of 67,859. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39837 for what follows._ [2008] 8 S.C.R. 464 A KASHMIR SINGH I • v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7024 Of 2002) B MAY 13, 2008 [S.S. SINHA AND V. S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925: c Purpose of enactment - Held: To provide for the better administration of Sikh Gurdwaras and for inquiries into matters connected therewith - State Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. ss. 40, 70 and 83 - Tenure of member of Commission - D Held: A member of commission cannot claim appointment in perpetuity - s.40 provides for constitution of Judicial Commission from time to time - Even in terms of s. 70, members are to be appointed from time to time - It is not correct to say that tenure is for whole life of member as it would be violative E of Article 16 of Constitution - Also, for giving meaningful construction to provisions, Court is bound to take into consideration situational change - In view of this, meaning which could be attributed in the year 1925 cannot be given the same meaning today - The Act is an ongoing one - Thus must be interF preted differently as the Court cannot ignore the ground realities - The doctrine of 'independence of judiciary' has no ap- ' plication - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 16 Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 16, 310- Held: Does not envisage holding of any office in perpetuity-Article 310 of G the Constitution of India provides for a tenure - It does not contemplate a life tenure -Article 16 of Constitution speaks of grant of equal opportunity to all - Allowing a person to hold public • office indefinitely would be opposed to the constitutional scheme, irrespective of any misconduct or other contingencies. H 464 .t ) KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 465 & ORS. Interpretation of statutes : Statute must be read in its entirety- It must then be read part by part, chapter by chapter, section by section and then clause by clause. A Violation of constitutional provisions - In construing a. B statute, an interpretation which would lead to violation of the constitutional provisions; cannot be taken recourse to. Societal changes - While construing an ongoing statute superior court must take into consideration the changes in the societal condition. C Purposive construction - If the statute has to be read keeping in view the constitutional schemes and make it workable, the provisions thereof are required to be given a purposive construction - For the said purpose, even the past prac0 tice as also the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act can be looked into. Approbate and reprobate - Appellant questioned validity of Notification dated 6th January, 1999 on the premise that Chief Minister of the State had acted ma/a fide - Appellant again appointed as Chairman of the Commission by a Notification dated 17th March, 2605 - Notification used the words "Reconstitution of the Commission" - He, therefore, is a functionary thereof - Thus, he cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966: Central Government issued notification dated 19. 10. 1978 nominating State of Punjab for exercising its power under 1966 Act - Held: By reason of notification dated 19. 10. 1978, Central Government has not delegated its power - The 1966 Act has an extra-territorial application - No law has been enacted either by State of Haryana or by State of Himachal Pradesh - In absence of any law having been enacted to contrary, functions under 1966 Act must be performed by some authority -Central Government with consent of State of Haryana has merely nominated 466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A State of Punjab to do so - When power has been conferred upon State of Punjab by the Central Government, it exercises a statutory power- It would, therefore, not case where the functions of State Government must be held to be confined to its territorial jurisdiction - Articles 245 or 246 or for that matter, B Articles 73 and 172 of Constitution will have no application - The ground of excessive delegation of power, thus, does not arise - Administrative law - Delegation of powers - Constitu- . tion of India, 1950 - Articles 73 and 172. The Sikh Gurudwaras Act, 1925 was applicable to the C entire territories of the undivided State of Punjab including PEPSU. By reason of the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State of Himachal Pradesh was constituted, having been carved out from the State of Punjab. Another Parliamentary Act, being Punjab D Reorganisation Act, 1966 was enacted in terms whereof the State of Punjab was divided into the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. The Central Government admittedly is the appropriate authority for passing requisite orders in relaE tion to the matters involving inter-State Boards as envisaged under s.88 of the 1966 Act. It issued a notification dated 19.10.1978 nominating the State of Punjab for the purpose of exercising its power under the 1966 Act. In terms of the provisions of the Sikh Gurudwaras F Act, 1925, the SGPC(Board} was constituted. Appellant was appointed as a member of the Commission in terms of a Notification dated 4.7.89. He was elected the President thereof. A new Board was constituted on 21.11.1996. While the Commission was functioning with the said memG be rs, the State of Punjab issued a notification on 6.01.1999 whereby and whereunder all the members including the appellant were removed and in their place new members were appointed. H A writ petition was filed thereagainst in January, 1999. I • • •· I KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 467 & ORS. During pendency of the said writ petition, the State of A Punjab issued two more notifications on or about 12.01.1999. By reason of the first notification issued under ss. 70 and 71 of the Act, the notification dated 6.01.1999 was rescinded and by reason of the second notification, the Commission was reconstituted. The writ petition was B amended questioning also the validity of the aforementioned two notifications dated 12.01.1999. The Division Bench of High Courtreferred the matter to a Five Judge Bench. On. 13.9.2002, the judgment was delivered. The Three Judges were of the opinion that C the tenure of the members of the Commission is co-terminus with the term of the Board; and that the Government of Punjab had the power to issue directions in regard to the constitution of the Commission. One of the Judges opined that having regard to the decision of the D Full Bench of the High Court in *Shiror:ani Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee, the members of the Commission could not be removed. The Chief Justice of the High Court, however, was of the opinion that in view of the terminologies used in the relevant provisions of the Act and E as no fixed period for holding the office has been provided therein, the Commission can be directed to be wound up only when no case remains pending before it. The judgment dated 13.9.2002 is impugned before this Court. During pendency of the writ petition, members F were appointed on 8.07.2002 whereagainst the Board filed writ petition which was allowed by an order dated 14.08.2003. Civil Appeal Nos. 8169-8172 of2003 and 31623165 of 2004 are directed against the said order dated 14.08.2003. G Dismissing CA No. 7024/2002, 8171-72/2003 and Allowing CA No. 3545/2008, 5546/2003, 8169-8170/2003 and 3162-3165/2004; the Court HELD: 1.1. The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 was enacted H ---~--------- 468 SUPREME cou"RT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A to provide for the better administration of certain Sikh \-. Gurdwaras and for inquiries into matters connected therewith. It is a complete Code. The Act provides for not only the constitution of a Tribunal but also for the constitution of a Commission. Both the Tribunal as also the Commission B play significant and important roles under the Acl They deal with a large number of disputes. [Para 27] [489, B-C] c *Shiromani Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar • and Anr. v. Lachhman Singh Gill and others AIR (1970) P & H 40 referred to. 1.2. The holders of the office both of the Tribunal as also the Commission function under a statute. The Commission/ Tribunal is· to be constituted from time to time. Whereas sub-section (5) of s.12 empowers the Local GovD ernment to remove any member of the Tribunal on the grounds enumerated therein, s. 83 of the Act does not deal with such a situation. [Para 28] [489, D-E] 2.1. A statute, as is well known, must be read in its entirety. It must then be read part by part, chapter by chapE ter, section by section and then clause by clause. Be it the constitution of the Tribunal or the Commission, it is required to be done 'from time to time'. S.40 provides for constitution of a Judicial Commission from time to time. Undoubtedly, the same is required to be done in the manF ner provided for therein but that would not take away the power of the Government as regards constitution of the Judicial Commission 'from time to time'. [Para 30-31] [489,G-H; 490,A] 2.2. The fact that each Board must submit a list within G 90 days from its constitution is itself indicative of the fact that the same is imperative in nature. The Government upon receipt of the said list must perform its functions. Undoubtedly, the Commission exercises a judicial function but the same would not mean that in the name of inH dependence in its functioning, the members will continue • ' • j KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 469 & ORS . to hold office in perpetuity. [Paras 35,36) [490, E-F] A 2.3. It is, one of the functions of the Board to submit a list of the names of seven persons to the Local Government. Two of the members of the Commission are to be selected by the Local Government out of the list of qualified persons prepared and maintained in terms thereof. If 8 the Board fails to perform its duties in preparing a select list enlisting therein the names of seven persons who are qualified to become a member of the Commission; a' fortiori it would be the duty of the State Government to select the names of two of them for appointment as memC bers of the Commission only out of the said list. The said provisions, clearly indicate the tenure of the Commission. The dichotomy is created in view of the words "time to time" and the limited power of the State to dissolve the Commission. The power of dissolution is a separate D power. It is a substantive power. Removal of the members of a body corporate is also a substantive power. It is one thing to say that on happening of certain contingencies, which may include misconduct on the part of the member of a body corporate, the power of removal can E be resorted to or the power of dissolution of the entire body can be taken recourse to, but then the same by itself would not lead to a conclusion that in the event the said contingencies cannot be complied with, in a given situation, the Chairman and members shall continue to F hold the office in perpetuity. [Paras 38- 40] [491, A-F] 3.1. The Act is a pre-Constitutional Act. Upon coming into force of the Constitution of India, it must be read in the light of the constitutional scheme and its provisions. In construing a statute, an interpretation which would lead G to violation of the constitutional provisions, cannot be taken recourse to. [Para 41] [491, F-G] 3.2:Article 310 of the Constitution of India provides for a tenure. It does not contemplate a life tenure. It does H 470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A not contemplate a permanent term. Article 16 of the Constitution of India which is a species of the equality clauses contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, speaks of grant of equal opportunity to all. Allowing a person to hold public office indefinitely would be opB posed to the constitutional scheme, irrespective of any misconduct or other contingencies. Constitution of India does not envisage holding of any office in perpetuity. [Para 44] [492, B-C] 4. This Court is not unmindful of the opinion of the C Chief Justice of the High Court that the term shall come to an end when no dispute would remain pending before the Commission. [Para 45] [492, D] 5.1. If the contention of appellant is to be accepted 0 that having regard to the doctrine of independence of judiciary, the State Government will have no role to play in the matter of constitution of the Board, the Government will never be in a position to dissolve the Commission unless case is made out under one or the other provisions of the Act. The doctrine of 'independence of judiE ciary' has nothing to do when the tenure is fixed by a statute. Even in relation to selection of the members of the Board, the State has a limited role to play. With a view to construe the said provision the past practice may also be held to be relevant. The High Court has taken notice of the F past practice in this behalf in great details showing as to how the reconstitution of the Commission had taken place from time to time, almost at regular intervals. A chart was filed by the appellant which clearly show that constitution and reconstitution of the Board had taken place from time G to time. The very fact that it has been working continuously and the members of the Board have been constituted at intervals is also a pointer to show that the members had not been holding office at their will, far less in perpetuity. The same persons have been nominated more than once, even H successively. [Paras 49-51] [493, C-G; 494, B] \. . KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 471 & ORS. 5.2. In a case of this nature, literal interpretation is A not possible. If the statute has to be read keeping in view the constitutional schemes and make it workable, the provisions thereof are required to be given a purposive con~ struction. For the said purpose, even the past practice as also the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act can B be looked into. [Para 52] [494, C-D] New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Nusli Neville Wadia and Anr JT 2008 (1) SC 31; Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India AIR 1957 SC 397; The Quarry Owners Association v. The State of Bihar & Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 655; Gurudevdatta C VKSSS Maryadit & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2001) 4 sec 534; K. TM. S. Mohd. and another v. Union of India Amanullah Quareshi v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 178; Gopal Narain v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr (1964) 4 SCR 869; Bhatnagars and Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India, (1957) 1 D SCR 701; Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 sec 671 - relied on. 6. It may be true that the Court shall not interfere with the judicial authority. It should be allowed to function inE dependently and impartially, but at the same time it cannot be allowed to continue in perpetuity. A balance, thus, must be struck. Whereas, on the one hand, the discretionary jurisdiction of the State would not lightly be assumed having regard to the nature of the office held by the appellant, it cannot also be held that no tenure is fixed therefor at all. [Paras 56, 57] [49,E-F] 7.1. A holistic reading of the statutes should be resorted to, to find out as to what meaning should be assigned to the words "from time to time". The perpetuity in office is neither contemplated under Act nor the constitutional scheme permits the same. It may be true that Clause (iv) of S.79 of the Act has been declared ultra vires by the High Court in the case of *Shiromani Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee, but the same by itself, is not suf- 472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A ficient to hold that save and except for the power of the State Government under s.83 of the Act for dissolution of the Commission, it would continue to function till any case is pending. The said interpretation would not only lead to an anomalous situation, but also frustrate the constitutional scheme. s For the aforementioned purpose, two salient principles, i.e., the 'power to appoint' carries with it the 'power to remove' under the General Clauses Act. If the Commission is to be constituted from time to tin;ie, it must be held that to effectuate this power it would be reasonable to conclude that such c power can be exercised as and when a necessity arises therefor. [Paras 54,55, 59] [495, G-H; 496, A; 495, C-D] 7.2. For the purpose of giving an effective and meaningful construction of the provisions, the court is bound to take into consideration the situational change. The D statute is an ongoing one. The number of litigations in the year 1925 might have been small. Occasional formation of the Commission might be contemplated keeping in view the number of litigations at that point of time. The Act, however, must be interpreted differently as the court E cannot ignore the ground realities. If it is to be held that in terms of S. 83 of the Act, the State Government has the power to dissolve the Commission only in terms thereof, for all intent and purport, the Commission shall continue till a member dies or resigns. [Para 60] [496, B-D] F Satyawati Sharma (Dead) by LRs. v. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. 2008 (6) SCALE 325 - relied on. 7.3. On the appellant's own showing, the Commission is not an occasional body. It has continued to funcG tion for a long time. If that be so, the object and purpose for which the statute contemplated constitution of such occasional body has lost its purpose. Apart from s.40 of the Act, even in terms of s.70 of the Act, the members are to be appointed from time to time. If the tenure is for the whole life of the member, there cannot be any fresh apH \ . • i KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 473 & ORS . pointment. If there cannot be any fresh appointment, the A same would be clearly violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. [Para 61] [496, E-F] Sri Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1975) 2 SCC 671 and M.P Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. M.P Electricity Board (2004) 9 SCC 755 - relied on. B 7.4. In view of the situational change, a meaning which could be attributed in the year 1925 cannot be given the same meaning today. For the aforementioned purpose, ss.40 and 70 of the Act must be read together. Therefor a c holistic reading of the entire Act would be necessary. So read, the opinion of the majority appeals. By reason of such an interpretation, the apprehension that the State would be endowed with the arbitrary power is wiped off. The term 'from time to time' should be given an effective 0 and purposeful meaning. If any other meaning is assigned, sub-section (3) of s.70 and sub-section (1) of s.72 would be rendered otiose. [Paras 64, 65] [497, H; 498, A-B] 8. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. Appellant has questioned the validity E of the Notification dated 6th January, 1999 on the premise that the Chief Minister of the State had acted ma/a fide. The Full Bench noticed that factual foundation had not been laid therefor. For all intent and purport, the said point was given up. Furthermore, the appellant has again been F appointed as a Chairman of the Commission by a Notification dated 17th March, 2005. The Notification used the words "Reconstitution of the Commission". He, therefore, is a functionary thereof. He cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate. [Para 66] [498 C-E] G 9.1. By reason of the notification dated 19.10.1978, the Central Government has not delegated its power. The 1966 Act has an extra-territorial application. It is not in dispute that no law has been enacted either by the State of Haryana or by the State of Himachal Pradesh. In absence H 474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A of any law having been enacted to the contrary, the functions under the 1966 Act must be performed by some authority. The Central Government with the consent of the State of Haryana has merely nominated the State of Punjab to do so. By reason thereof, it has not delegated any power. B Sub-section (1) of s.72 of the 1966 Act envisages a direction upon the Central Government. Such a direction has been issued by reason of the impugned notification. When a power has been conferred upon the State of Punjab by the Central Government, it exercises a statutory power. It C would, therefore, not a case where the functions of the State Government must be held to be confined to its territorial jurisdiction. Articles 245 or 246 or for that matter, Articles 73 and 172 of the Constitution of India will have no application. [Paras 67 and 68] [498, F-H; 499,A] D 9.2. Even such questions have not been raised before the High Court. In issuing the notification, the Central Government was merely exercising its statutory functions. It has not exercised a power of delegation. The ground of excessive delegation of power, thus, does not E arise. Some authority is required to function. If an authority has been nominated, all other questions become academic. [Para 69] [499, B-C] F G CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7024 of 2002 From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.9.2002 of the High Court Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 371 of 1999 WITH C.A. Nos. 3545 of 2008. 5546, 8171-8172 & 8169-8170 of 2003 3162-3165 of 2004 P.S. Parwalia, G.S. Vaidyanathan and Jaspal Singh. Aman Preet Rahi, Tania Walia, Devesh Tripathi. Manoj Swarup, Ajay H Pal, Nikhil Jain, Gagandeep Sharma. Kamaldeep Narang and KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF !NOIA 475 & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J) Satinder Singh for the Appellant. Kiran Bhardwai, D.S. Mahra (for B.V. Balaram Das), Naresh Bakshi, C.K. Sasi, Rana Ranjit Singh and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was deliverd by S.B. SINHA, J : Leave granted. A B 1. Whether rule of perpetuity would be applicable in respect of a member of a Sikh Judicial Commission (for short "Commission") constituted under the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 c (for short "the Act") is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.09.2002 passed by a FiveJudge Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 371 of 1999. 2. The Act was applicable to the entire territories of the D undivided State of Punjab including PEPSU. By reason of the provisions of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, the State of Himachal Pradesh was constituted, having been carved out from the State of Punjab. 3. Another Parliamentary Act, being Punjab Reorganisation E Act, 1966 (for short "the 1966 Act") was enacted in terms whereof the State of Punjab was divided into the State of Punjab, the State of Haryana and the Union Territory of Chandigarh. · 4. The Central Government admittedly is the appropriate F authority for passing requisite orders in relation to the matters involving inter-State Boards as envisaged under Section 88 of the 1966 Act. It issued a notification dated 19.10.1978 nominating the State of Punjab for the purpose of exercising its power under the 1966 Act. G 5. In terms of the provisions of the Act, the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") was constituted. Appellant was appointed as a member of the Commission in terms of a notification dated 4.07.1989. He was elected the President thereof. Along with H 476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 8 S.C.R. A him one S. Dara Singh and S. Raghbir Singh were also appointed as members of the Commission. 6. A new Board was constituted on 21.11.1996. While the Commission was functioning with the said members, the State of Punjab issued a notification on 6.01.1999 whereby and B whereunder all the members including the appellant were removed and in their places S. Man Mohan Singh, S. Amrik Singh and S. Ajwant Singh Mann were appointed. 7. A writ petition was filed thereagainst in January, 1999. c During pendency of the said writ petition, the State of Punjab issued two more notifications on or about 12.01.1999. By reason of the first notification issued under Sections 70 and 71 of the Act, the notification dated 6.01.1999 was rescinded and by reason of the second notification, the Commission was reconD stituted. 8. The writ petition was amended questioning also the validity of the aforementioned two notifications dated 12.01.1999. 9. The State of Punjab as also the Union of India, however, E opposed the said writ petition contending that the State of Punjab had the requisite jurisdiction to remove the members of the Commission. 10. It was furthermore contended that the Union of India in F terms of Section 72 of the 1966 Act had the requisite power to amend the law in regard to an intra-state body corporate. It was urged that by reason of the notification dated 19.10.1978, only a clarification had been issued to the effect that the word "State Government" would mean the "Government of State of G Punjab" and even the State of Haryana consented thereto. \ . 11. As regards the notifications dated 12.01.1999, it was • contended that some inadvertent mistake had crept in; which was corrected by the said notifications, insofar as the source of power for issuance of the said notifications being Section 79 of H the Act was not available, particularly, in view of the fact that ~ I } f KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 477 & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J] clause (iv) thereof had been declared ultra vi res by a Full Bench A of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Shiromani Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar and another v. Lachhman Singh Gill and others (AIR 1970 P & H 40]. 12. The matter was placed before a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. By an order dated 19.04.1999, B the Division Bench formulated the following five questions and referred the matter to a Five-Judge Bench: "(i) Whether the Government of India has power under Section 72 of the Punjab Re-organisation Act to issue c notification dated 19.10.1978 directing the substitution of the words "the State Government" with the words "the Government of the State of Punjab" in Sections 70, 71, 74, 78, 79 and 80 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925? (ii) If the answer to question No. (i) is in negative, then D (a) Whether the petitioners and such other members who have been appointed by the Government of Punjab State after reorganization can challenge the notifications E dated 19.10.1978 and 12.1.1999 as their own appointments are invalid? (b) Which Government would exercise the powers of the State Government in relation to the various provisions of the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 F which deals with the functioning of the Judicial Commission, powers to issue directions in relation to the Judicial Commission? (rii) If the answer to question No. (i) is in affirmative, then (a) Whether the jurisdiction of the Central Government would be ousted in view of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Inter-state Cooperation Act, 1957? And G (b) Whether notification dated 19:10.1~73 su/f;&rs H A B 478 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R. from the vice of excessive delegation? (iv) Whether under the Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925 any period is fixed for which a member of the Commission will hold the office or does he hold the office in perpetuity? (v) Whether the notification dated 12.1.1999 is liable to be set aside on account of mala-fide?" 13. The Five-Judge Bench heard the matter for some time and reserved its judgment on 24.05.2001. On or about C 5.07.2002, however, the purported notification dated 12.01.1999 was withdrawn and the Commission was restored. Appellant herein filed an application for withdrawal of the said writ petition which having been opposed, by an order dated 16.07.2002, permission to withdraw the said writ petition was refused. D E The judgment was delivered on 13.09.2002. Three Hon'ble Judges were of the opinion: (i) The tenure of the members of the Commission is cotenuous with the term of the Board; and (ii) The Government of Punjab had the power to issue directions in regard to the constitution of the Commission. One of the Hon'ble Judges opined that having regard to the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court in Shiromani F Gurdwaras Parbandhak Committee (supra), the members of the Commission cannot be removed. The Chief Justice of the High Court, however. was of the opinion that in view of the terminologies used in the relevant G provisions of the Act and as no fixed period for holding the office has been provided therein, the Commission can be directed to be wound up only when no case rerr:ains pending before it. 14. We may place on record that during pendency of the writ petition, members were appointed on 8.07.2002 H whereagainst the Board filed writ petition which was allowed by ' . KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 479 & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J] ·-,;. an order dated 14.08.2003. Civil Appeal Nos. 8169-8172 of A 2003 and 3162-3165 of 2004 are directed against the said order dated 14.08.2003. 15. The Act was enacted to provide for the legal procedu re in terms whereof Gurdawaras and Shrines which, owning B to their origin and habitual use, are regarded by Sikhs as essentially places of worship may be brought effectively and per- ,,. manently under Sikh control and their administration reformed so as to make it consistent with the religious views of the said community. c The Act extended to the territories which immediately before 1.11.1956 were in the States of Punjab and Patiala and East Punjab States Union. "Commission" had been defined in Section 2(2) of the Act to mean "the Judicial Commission constituted under the proviD ... sions of Part 111" of the Act. "Committee" has been defined in Section 2(3) of the Act to mean "a committee of management constituted under the provisions of Part Ill". E Chapter 11 of the Act consists of Sections 3 to 11. It deals with the matter relating to filing of petitions to State Government relating to Gurdwaras. Chapter Ill, consisting of Sections 12 to 37, deals with > appointment of the members of the Tribunal and proceedings F before it. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act reads as under: "12(1) For the purpose of deciding claims made in accordance with the provisions of this Act the Local G Government may from time to time by notification direct .. the constitution of a tribunal or more tribunals than one and may in like manner direct the dissolution of such tribunal or tribunals." Chapter V of the Act, occurring in Part 111, deals with the H 480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R. A control of Sikh Gurdwaras. Section 40 of the Act deals with the .. • Board, Committee and Commission to be constituted for the purposes of this Act. Section 41 of the Act reads as under: B "41. The management of every Notified Sikh Gurdwara shall be administered by the committee constituted therefor, the Board and the Commission in accordance with the provisions of this Part." In terms of the provisions of the Act, the Board is the highest administrative body. It is controlled by the State GovernC ment. All regional political parties participate in the election of the Board. Section 42 of the Act provides for constitution of the Board. Process of election is contemplated by Sections 43, 43-A and 50 of the Act. D Section 43-A of the Act reads as under: "43-A. Constitution of new Board.- (1) Whenever a new Board within the meaning of Section 51 is constituted, it shall consist of - E (i) one hundred and forty elected members; (ii) the Head Ministers of the Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, and the following ground Takhats, namelyF the Sri Akal Takht Sahib, Amritsar, the Sri Takhat Keshgarh Sahib, Anandpur, the Sri Takhat Patna Sahib, Patna the Sri Takht Hazur Sahib, Nanded; and (iii) fifteen members resident in India, of whom not more than five shall be residents of Punjab, co-opted by the G .members of the Board as described in clauses (i) and (ii); (2) The State Government shall, as soon as may be, call a meeting of the members of the Board described in clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (1) for the purpose of coopting the members described in clause (ii) of that subH section, and after the members have been co-opted, the ' ~ \ KASHMIR SINGH v. UNION OF !NOIA 481 & ORS. [S.B. SINHA; J] State Government shall notify the fact of the Board having A been duly constituted; and the date of the publication of the notification shall be deemed to be the date of the constitution of the Board." The term of the members of the Board is five years from the date of its constitution or until the constitution Of a new Board, B whichever is later as provided under Section 51 of the Act. Life of the Board is also limited. Constitution of Judicial Commission is contained in Sec· tion 70 of the Act. The members of the Commission must be c Sikhs appointed from time to time, as may be found necessary by the local Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 70 provides for the essential qualifications for being appointed as members. Sub-section (3) of Section 70 of the Act provides that two of the members of the Commission sh