T.S.THAKUR,J. - (1.) This petition purports to have been filed in public interest. It prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to permit what he describes as "Monopolization of telecast of Gurbani" from the Golden Temple in Amritsar through respondent No. 3, which happens to be a Punjabi Television Channel. It also prays for a declaration that the telecast of Gurbani through a commercial channel tantamount to commercialization of religion, which is against the basic tenets of Sikhism and detrimental to the interests of the Sikhs as a Community. It prays for striking down the contract entered into between respondent No. 3 channel and respondent No. l Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (for short 'S.G.P.C.'), as being against public policy and opposed to Section 23 of the Contract Act of 1872. It also prays for a direction to respondents No. 1 to 3 to account for the money received by them as a consequence of what is described is a "questionable contract" entered into between respondents No. 1 and 3 since the year 2000.
(2.) THE petitioner claims to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for research and propagation of the history and philosophy of Sikhism. It also claims to be responsible for many publications especially 'Guru Granth Sahib in the Eyes of Non-Sikh Scholars', a book that is alleged to have been published and distributed worldwide in different languages including English, French and Spanish. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved of what is described by it as "commercialization of broadcasting of Gurbani." According to the petitioner, not only is the telecast of Gurbani through respondent No. 3 channel impermissible according to Sikh tenets but the same is also rapidly leading to corruption within the Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, which manages the affairs of the Golden Temple. It is alleged that the contract entered into between S.G.P.C. on the one hand and respondent No. 3 on the other hand, creates a long term monopoly in favour of respondent No. 3 and is, therefore, against the interests of the Sikh Community in general. It also alleges that allotment of such contracts encourages materialism and reduces the efficacy of Gurbani because of the introduction of commercial elements in it, which otherwise is a purely religious discourse. The writ petition traces the history of Sikh institutions and relies upon certain extracts from a thesis submitted by Professor Kashmir Singh in support of the same. It alleges that immorality and corruption in the running the affairs of the Gurdwaras, was according to the historians, the prime reason for deterioration of the standards of Sikh religious leaders and Sikh shrines. It also refers to alleged nepotism and favouritism within the S.G.P.C. and its members and makes a reference to state of affairs at present in the management of the holiest of the shrines of the Sikh community. Respondent No. 1 S.G.P.C. has filed its counter affidavit in which the allegations made in the writ petition have been stoutly denied. It is denied by respondent-S.G.P.C. that telecast of holy Gurbani tantamount to commercialization or sale of the Gurbani. On the contrary, telecast of Gurbani from Harmohinder Sahib has been recited very well by the Sikhs and non-Sikhs throughout the World. It also explains that the number of channels selected for relay of Gurbani has nothing to do with the acceptability of Gurbani as a divine song or its efficacy so long as those interested in listening to Gurbani have the means and access to the same. It enumerates different modes by which such programmes can be telecast, and emphasizes that Gurbani Kirtan is free of costs to the viewers all through. No body is according to the respondent-S.G.P.C. deprived of the telecast of Gurbani from Darbar Sahib and the interest of the viewers is no where affected by S.G.P.C. assigning exclusive right of telecast of Gurbani to respondent No. 3. It also points out that before entering into an agreement with respondent No. 3 in the year 2000, the respondents had entered into an agreement with two different channels, called Punjabi World and Channel Punjabi for the relay telecast of Gurbani. These two channels were given rights to telecast the Gurbani from Harmohinder Sahib free of cost. Both the channels had, however, failed to ensure the continuity of telecast under the agreement. It also enumerates the back ground in which the S.G.P.C. entered into an agreement with M/s. E.T.C. Punjabi respondent No. 3 in this petition and the terms on which the said agreement was arrived at. It also states that the S.G.P.C. has pursuant to the said agreement, already received an amount of Rs. 5,48,19,500/- towards education fund which the S.G.P.C. is spending on education without expecting any monetary return from the beneficiaries of the said expenditure. The counter affidavit finds fault with the maintainability of the writ petition and refers to the provisions of Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, particularly provisions of Sections 70 and 142 of the said Act. It asserts that in terms of Section 70 of Sikh Gurdwara Act, 1925, a Sikh Gurdwara Judicial Commission comprising law knowing person(s) and possessing the requisite qualifications is competent to entertain from any person having interest in a Notified Sikh Gurdwara, any complaint regarding malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust, neglect of duty or abuse of powers conferred by the Act or any alleged expenditure for a purpose not authorized by the Act and the Commission, if it finds any such malfeasance, misfeasance, breach of trust, etc. is competent to direct any specific act to be done or forborne, for the purpose of remedying the same. It may also order the removal of any office holder or member of the Board, Executive Committee or Committee responsible for any such act. Suffice it to say that the respondents have not only disputed the factual assertions made by the petitioner society but questioned the maintainability of this petition on legal as well as factual grounds. In particular respondent-S.G.P.C. has alleged that petitioner society has a vested interest in making common cause with M/s. Tata Sky/DTH Platform which is a business concern competing with respondent No. 3 and not a charitable institution. It, therefore, prays for the dismissal of the present writ petition with costs.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and perused the record.;