Mian Jalal-Ud-Din, J.The petitioner seeks to strike down the Sikh Gurdawaras and Religious Endowment Act of 1973 particularly Sections 3, 9, 10, 11 and 14 of the Act as unconstitutional and ultra vires of the Legislature and also issuance of a writ of mandamus to the respondent not to appoint Sikh Gurdawara Prabhandak Board or Sikh Gurdawara Prabhandak Committees.

2. The petitioner, has averred that he is a Sikh by religion. He claims fundamental right to freedom of conscience, right to profess, practice and propagate freely Sikh religion. The Sikh denomination has the right to manage its own affairs in matters of religion to own and acquire movable and immovable property and to administer such property in accordance with law. According to him the Sikh Gurdawara and Religious Endowment Act 1973 (hereinafter called the Act), interferes with the fundamental rights of the petitioner and Sikhs in matter of religion to administer the property of Gurdawaras in accordance with law. Prior to the passing of the Act the Sikh religious denomination in the State has been managing Gurdawaras in matter, of religion and properties belonging to and attached to Gurdawaras through their own representatives elected for the purpose. Now as a result of passing of the Act the Management and the Supervision in matters of religion and also of Gurdawara property has gone in the hands of the Government for one year. The restriction imposed on the management of the properties of Gurdawaras is unreasonable and arbitrary in so far as religious affairs are concerned. It violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. The Act arms the Gurdawara Prabhandak Board and the Gurdawara Prabhandak Committees both constituted under the Act to manage the affairs of the Sikh Gurdawaras with absolute, uncanalised and unguided discretionary powers. Any Gurdawara can be called a Sikh Gurdawara and can be taken under the control and management of the Board or the Committee. In the same way any property of the institution which may be called Gurdawara by the Board or the Committee can be taken for management. Section 3 does not provide any agency for the election of the Board. According to Section 3 of the Act the first Board is to be nominated by the Government for one year. This provision contravenes the guarantee given under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India as the right to administer the religious and secular affairs of the Sikh Community is taken away by the Government for one year and even vested in the hands of persons nominated by the Government. Section 10 of the Act provides for the establishment of the Committees of 11 members for each District of the State for managing the Sikh religious and secular affairs of the State Sikh Gurdawaras situated therein but no agency has been named to elect the members; nor is there any mention of any voters and their qualifications who will be entitled to vote at the election. The Act is also silent about the forum which will decide the disputes about elections and voters. u/s 10 the first Committee is to be nominated by the Government which is unconstitutional as it offends Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. There is no provision in the Act for conducting the elections for members of the Committee or board after the period of one year or deciding disputes regarding such elections. Section 11 is vague and ambiguous and does not convey any sense. Section 9 authorises the board to exercise general administrative superintendence over all the Committees elected under the provision of Act but no power has been given to the board to exercise control over the nominated committees. This gives arbitrary and unlimited powers to the committees. The Act does not impose any restrictions on the nominated members for their being nominated as are provided in Sections 4 and 13 of the Act in elections as members of the Board or the Committees. No. provision has been made in the Act for removal of any of the members of the Board or the Committee (if) after nomination or election he incurs any disqualification mentioned in the Act The Act is also silent with regard to filling of the vacancy, if any, and manner of its filling if a member incurs any of the disqualifications or dies or resigns. No machinery has been set up in the Act to decide questions and objections whether any person is suffering from any of the disqualifications mentioned in the Act. The language of the Act is such that even a non-Sikh, an illiterate person, a convict or non-punjabi knowing man, a blind or a minor can become a member of the committee or the Board which is against the religious tenets, practices and sentiments of Sikhs and is a direct interference in the administration of Sikh Gurdawaras.

According to the Act a PATIT cannot be a member of the committee or Board but the definition of Patit has not been. given which is likely to create confusion. No procedure has been provided in the Act as to how the Board and Committees will manage the properties of Sikh Gurdawaras or their religious affairs. Section 14 is violative as it interferes with religious practices of Sikhs and this offends Articles 25 and 26 of the Act Again the Act is lacunous, there is no forum to which the disputes of board or committees or of any office employee can be referred to. No provision has been made in the Act for the appointment, terms of office, removal, dismissal discharge of the employees and servants of the Board or the committees. Absence of these provisions is sure to lead to mismanagement. The voter has not been defined in the Act who is eligible to vote for a Committee; nor have any qualifications of a voters been prescribed in the Act. There is no provision in the Act for deciding disputes involving questions whether the person is a Sikh or not, a voter or not; whether the property is Gurdawara property or not. Also there is no provision for deciding complaints regarding irregularities in the administration of Gurdawara properties, breach of trust, if committed by the members of the committee or the Board and for deciding any complaint against any office bearer or employee of the committee or Board On all these grounds, it is claimed, that the Act offends the constitutional provisions and is thus liable to be struck down.

3. Shri Mangat Ram I.A.S. Secretary to Government Revenue Department in his reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Government has affirmed that the legislature has right to enact law relating to administration of properties owned by religious denominations, such as Sikh Gurdawaras. The Act was the result of the bill introduced by a private member of the J & K Legislative Assembly late S. Surrinder Singh and passed by the Assembly. The object of the Act is to provide for better administration and supervision of the properties of Sikh Gurdawaras and Religious Endowments of J & K State. The provisions of the Act, it is affirmed, are not vague. It was not necessary to insert any definition of the words Sikh and Sikh Gurdawaras in the Act as these words are (of) well known connotations and are understood by all. It is denied that the Gurdawara Prabhandak Board or Gurdawara Prabhandak Committees have absolute, uncanalised and unguided discretion in exercising powers. Various provisions of the Act provide sufficient guide lines to the Board or the committees for their working. Any abuse of their powers can be controlled and set right by legal process. About Section 3 it is averred that till regular elections are held under the Act some arrangements have to be made for administration of the properties of Sikh Gurdawaras and Endowments and as a matter of necessity and only as a temporary arrangement nominated Board for one year has been provided for. It is denied that the provision of nomination violates Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution. Respectable persons who wield influence in the Sikh Community were nominated as members of the Sikh Gurdawara Prabhandak Board. This Gurdawara Prabhandak Board has to work only for one year. It was not necessary to lay down the qualifications in details for nominated members; nor do the persons nominated suffer from any of the disqualifications mentioned in the Act, The word Patit has been used to convey its ordinary sense as a person who has fallen from the path laid down by religion or from path of righteousness. No definition was therefore needed to be inserted in the Act. The Act lays down objects for which funds of Sikh Gurdawaras and Endowments can be spent. The Act lays down principles, the details for carrying out the purpose of the Act are to be provided in the Rules which the Government is empowered to frame, and which now have been framed.

4. In view of this it is prayed that the writ petition merits dismissal.

5. The case originally came up before my learned Brother Anand, J., He was of the opinion that as the petition raised important questions relating to the constitutionality of the Act therefore he referred the case to a larger Bench constituted by the Honble Chief Justice. This is how the case has come before us.

6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

7. The petitioner has raised questions relating to Articles 14 and 19 in his petition. He, however, made an application for deletion of these Articles and the prayer founded on these Articles. This was accordingly done. The case will now have to be determined minus the points raised under Articles 14 and 19, of the Constitution.

8. In order to appreciate the arguments of the petitioner it is necessary to know the scope and object of the Act. The preamble of the Act provides that the Act is intended to provide for better administration of the Sikh Gurdawaras in the Jammu and Kashmir State and their properties wherever situate. Pursuant to this legislative policy the Act saw the light of the day. It is well settled and the view is founded on established principle that courts have not to go into questions of the policy of the legislature or, they cannot question the motive for which an Act has been enacted. There is also presumption in favour of the constitutionality of laws so long as they are not struck down by courts as being ultra vires of the legislature vide also the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. Raymon and Co. (India) Private Ltd., at para 16.

9. The principle is also well recognised that legislature must be presumed to know the conditions of its people and the expediency for enacting a certain piece of legislation. The courts cannot attribute any malice to the legislature for enacting a statute. Good faith is always to be presumed. It is in this context that we have to examine the impugned Act "and appreciate the arguments raised by the petitioner for striking it down. It may be stated that an Act cannot be struck down merely because some of its provisions are not detailed or comprehensive or the Act suffers from vagueness and uncertainty. No power is vested in a court to strike down an Act because it is lacunous or vague. As observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Municipal Committee, Amritsar and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and K.A. Abbas Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, a law can be declared invalid by the superior courts in India if the legislature has no power to enact the law or the law violates any fundamental right guaranteed in part III of the Constitution, or is inconsistent with any constitutional provision, but not merely on the ground that it suffers from vagueness or that the law does not admit of a sound construction and the persons applying are thrown in boundless sea of uncertainty. Violation of a constitutional provision is a must to declare a law invalid The ratio of the decision in K.A. Abbas Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Another, is that courts must, language of the Act admitting, try to construe the language of an Act in cases of uncertainty and vegueness, in accordance with the intention of the legislature. It is only when the language does not admit of such construction and the law prima facie takes away a guaranteed freedom that the law can be declared ultra vires of the constitution.

10. Let us try to examine the arguments canvassed before us in the light of the above laid principles.

11. The proposition is not controverted before us that the Government is competent to enact law for the better administration of Sikh Gurdawaras and their properties in the State, That power, indeed vests in the Government by virtue of Articles 25 Sub-clause (2) and 26 (d) of the Constitution of India. Under clause (d) of Article 26 the right of a religious denomination to administer its property can be exercised in accordance with law. The Government can regulate the economic, political, financial and secular activities associated with religious observances.

12. In the instant case the Act merely regulates the administration of the properties, of Sikh Gurdawara and confers right of management of these properties on a body the members of which belong to the Sikh religious denomination who are to be elected by the Sikh Janta. The Act as such does not infringe Article 26 of the Constitutional India. Of course if the Act intended to confer the right on a body nominated :by the Government or on persons other than the members of the Sikh religious denomination then the matter would be different and the Act would be open to serious constitutional objections. But that indeed is not the case before us. It is true that under provisos to Sections-3 and 10 Of the Act for the first year the Government is empowered to nominate members for the Board and for the Committees respectively but these provisions have now become destitute of legal effect and have ceased to operate inasmuch as the period of one year has already elapsed. In view of this the aforesaid provisos cannot be made subject of attack.

13. Again, the Act cannot be struck down merely because some of its provisions are vague and lacunous. Unless it is found that the Act contravenes any constitutional provision or deprives a member of the Sikh denomination of a fundamental right it cannot be struck down. I do agree that certain expression such as Sikh, Sikh Gurdawaras and patit should have been defined and the legislature should have defined all the expressions in the same way as the Punjab Gurdawara Act and the Delhi Gurdawara Act have done yet that would not itself detract from the constitutionality of the Act. The words Sikh and Sikh Gurdawaras are to be understood in their ordinary meaning and this would not create any difficulty in the way of the working of the Act.

14. The argument that the voters who have to elect members of the committees have not been defined and no qualifications have been prescribed, for the voters, and further that the disqualifications prescribed for members of the Board and those of Committees. are not comprehensive is also devoid of force-in as much as the Rules that have been framed u/s 19 of the Act do prescribe the conditions of eligibility to vote in the election, and further these rules prescribed disqualifications for not being eligible to be elected as a member of the committee or of the Board, Section 19 of the Act confers rule making power on the Government for the purposes of carrying out the object and the manner in which the members of the Board or the committee shall be elected.

15. Rule 23 provides that no person whose name is not entered in the Electoral Rolls pertaining to the Constituency shall be entitled to vote in that constituency. In other words, Rule 23 read with Rule 5 defines a voter as one who is registered as a voter in the corresponding electoral roll of the Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly. Thus the qualifications of a voter are the same as are prescribed for voters of the Assembly constituency. It is also prescribed in Rule 5 that no person shall be entitled to be registered in the Electoral Roll for more than one constituency and for any constituency more than once. Grievance is, however, made of the fact that Electoral Rolls were prepared in the year 1971 and they have not been revised, therefore a member of the Sikh denomination who was a minor in 1971 and has attained majority now or a member whose name did not appear in the Electoral Roll of the Assembly Constituency then is deprived of exercising his vote, and therefore there being a serious defect, the provisions relating to election are lacunous and render the Act almost unworkable. But sight, is lost of the fact that under Rule 7 the Election authority is given power to entertain all objections, representations or complaints within 15 days from the date of publication of the list of voters. The Election authority has to deal with them summarily and thereafter cause the list of voters of the constituency to be finally published under R. 6. From this it is clear that a voter who has been left out in the Electoral Rolls or who has wrongly been recorded as a voter can for the purposes of the election under this Act, approach the Election authority and ask him to revise the [Electoral Roll. This takes the wind out of the sail of the argument of the petitioner.

16. There is also no force in the contention that no qualifications have been prescribed for the members of the committees and those of the Board. Sections 4 and 12 clearly lay down that a person shall not be eligible for election as a member of the Board or of the Prabhandak Committee respectively if he has incurred the disqualifications prescribed in either of the two sections. It is submitted that the disqualifications prescribed are not comprehensive and this will create serious complicacies, retard the implementation of the Act and give rise to many formidable problems. This, however, is a question that should be addressed to the legislature and not to the courts. A court cannot substitute its own view for the view of the legislature. The appropriate course for the petitioner is to approach the. legislature and get these sections recast in more comprehensive and detailed manner.

17. It is not also possible to accede to the argument that even a member not belonging to Sikh community can be elected for the Prabhandak Committee or for the Board because there is no chance for a non-Sikh to be elected as a member. All the voters must belong to Sikh religious denomination as they alone are eligible to vote for an election. They cannot elect a member belonging to a different religious denomination ; or one who is labouring under disqualification Therefore, the fear entertained by the petitioner is unfounded.

18. Another argument that no agency has been prescribed for conducting elections and no forum is mentioned for deciding the claims of unsuccessful candidates in the elections is also unfounded because in the very rules the agency for conducting the election has been prescribed under Chapter II of the Rules. Detailed procedure for conducting elections both for the Board and for the Committees has been provided. Under Rule 39 appeal is also provided against rejection of nomination papers.

19. Another argument that has been raised is that for a Chairman of the Committee or of the Board no qualifications have been prescribed. Even an illiterate person or an incompetent person may be elected as Chairman. This again is a matter with which the courts are not concerned. The courts have not to play the role of a legislature. The petitioner may well approach the legislature and seek the removal of his grievance on this score.

20. Attention has been invited to Section 11 of the Act It is pointed out that the words "six other members occurring in the Section make no sense. This is true and I do agree that these words are redundant and should be deleted. Section 11 appears to be a case of bad drafting.

21. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a formidable question about Section 14 of the Act that it interferes with the religious practices of the Sikh religious denomination. He has particularly referred to the following words:

A Committee shall have full powers of Control over the office holders.....of enforcing the proper observance of all ceremonies and religious observances in connection with such Gurdawara or Gurdawaras.

It is submitted that this amounts to direct interference in the religious affairs of Sikhs in as much as the Committee has been given the power to exercise control over the religious affairs of Sikh religious denomination. In my view this is not the correct interpretation of Section 14 of the Act. What the section envisages is that the committee will only enforce the proper observance of all religious ceremonies. The Committee has not to prescribe any religious ceremonies or rites or lay down any new code nor have they to prescribe the mode of enforcing those religious rites. What the Committees have to do simply is that they have only to enforce the proper observance of the well recognised ceremonies and well established religious practices and rites. These religious observances are to be enforced by the members belonging to the Sikh religious denomination and not by some outside or foreign element. The Government or for the matter of that any outside agency has no hand in controlling the religious affairs or enforcing the religious observance of Sikhs in the Gurdwaras.

22. Section 14 of the Act lays down that the Committee shall have full powers of control over its office holders and all properties and income of whatever description belonging to the Gurdawaras under its management. They will have power to take all such measures as they may be necessary to ensure the proper management of the Gurdawaras and the efficient administration of the property, income and endowments thereof. The effect of this is that the Committees have been given power to exercise control over the economic, financial and secular affairs connected or associated with religious practices and for that the legislature is competent to enact law. This, however, is recognised and engrafted in Article 25(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, I, therefore, do not subscribe to the view that Section 14 in any way offends. Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India.

23. This brings us to the question of control of finances. According to the petitioner the Act gives untrammelled powers to the Board and the Committees in regard to financial matters. No check can be exercised on their powers. In cases where the Board exhausts the funds or it needs funds there is no provision to meet such situations. The Sikh religious denomination has not been given any right to check the finances by enacting appropriate provisions in the Act just as there are relevant sections (Sections 114 and 115 and other sections in the Punjab Guardwara Act). There are no such corresponding provisions in the State. As this Act suffers from these infirmities it cannot survive.

24. In my view this argument has got no merit in as much as Chapter IV of the Act which relates to finances gives guidelines for exercising check on such matters. Section 16 provides that all properties and income of a Sikh Gurdwara shall be used in the first place, for the maintenance or improvement of the Gurdwara for the maintenance of religious worship and the performance and conduct of religious and chartiable duties; ceremonies and observances connected therewith; for the payment of allowance or salaries of officers and servants thereof, for the fulfilment of the objects of the endowment thereof; for maintenance of the langer; for such religious, chartiable or educational purposes as the Committee may consider necessary in connection therewith or for the discharge of any obligation legally incurred,

25. u/s 17 every committee shall have to pay annually to the Board a contribution in money out of the income of the Gurdawara for the purpose of meeting its lawful expenses. u/s 18 the accounts of the Board and the committees are to be subjected to audit once in every year. Under Rule 61 the money received in the Gurdwaras fund are to remain in the custody of the Treasurer till deposited in the Bank. Only the President and the Secretary have been given powers to operate upon the funds. No money is to be drawn from Bank unless it is required for meeting expenditure of Gurdawaras. Receipts of money are also regulated. Then the manners of maintenance of accounts of the Committee are also regulated in Rule 63. Thus it cannot be said that there is no check on this finances and no guidelines have been provided for the receipt, expenditure and management of the funds of the Gurdwara.

26. It may further be stated here that the petitioner has invoked Articles 26. The petition has not been filed by a religious denomination or a section thereof, therefore in my opinion the petition is incompetent for purposes of Article 26, According to Acharya Maharajshri Narendra Prasadji Anandprasadji Maharaj and Others Vs. The State of Gujarat and Others, Article 25 confers particular rights on all persons whereas Article 26 is confined to religious denomination or any section thereof. From the language of the two Articles it appears that Article 25 is subject to Article 26 of the Constitution.

27. S. Avtar Singh has also assailed the validity of the Rules on the ground that they suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. But this ground is not taken in the petition. Even allowing him to raise this argument we fail to understand as to how these rules suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. The legislature has only to lay down the policy. With proliferation of socio-economic activities it is highly inconvenient for the legislature to legislate on ancillary and subsidiary matters. It is therefore left to the rule making authority to frame appropriate rules for carrying into effect the policy and purpose of the Act. Here in the Act the rule making power has been delegated to a high power authority namely the Government. The Government has framed rules for carrying into effect the policy of the legislature. Those rules do not overstep the limit of delegation. Therefore these Rules do not suffer on that score. It cannot be said that the legislature has abdicated its legislative functions.

28. For the foregoing reasons I am of the opinion that no relief can be afforded to the petitioner by declaring the Act or any of its provisions ultra vires of the legislature. The writ petition is liable, to be dismissed which is hereby dismissed but leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

29. Before parting with the case I should like to observe that though5 the Act cannot be termed as unconstitutional of the powers of the legislature yet there are loopholes in it. Some of its provisions are vague and not comprehensive. In certain cases we have noticed bad drafting as in Section 11. Expressions patit Sikh and Sikh Gurdawaras have not been defined so as to make their meaning more exact and precise. These definitions do find place in other Indian Acts. Therefore, in order to remove vagueness and loopholes in the Act and to make it more comprehensive, detailed and effectively workable, it is suggested that the Government may address itself to remove these defects by necessary legislation. This will be in the interest of the Sikh religious denomination for whose sake and cause this piece of welfare legislation has been undertaken and brought on the Statute Book.

Adarsh Sein Anand, J.

30. I agree.