Calcutta High Court

Calcutta High Court: An appeal was filed by the appellants (Gurudwara Chhota Sikh Sangat) against an order of excommunication passed against them by the appellants, who are office bearers of a Sangat (a religious community). A division bench of T S Sivagnanam CJ., and Hiranmay Bhattacharya, J., reduced the cost to Rs 25000 to be paid as a deterrent on the appellants and this could be a warning to them that such practice should never be adopted any time in the future.

Excommunication is a severe act that ostracizes an individual from the community, and its roots can be traced back to ancient India. The appellants’ decision to excommunicate the writ petitioner in the year 2024 raised eyebrows and drew criticism for its archaic nature. The writ petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the excommunication order, approached the court seeking relief. They argued that the act of excommunication was unjust and violated their rights within the religious community. The petitioner contended that such archaic practices should have no place in modern society, especially among a community that should uphold principles of inclusivity and tolerance.

The appellants defended their decision, citing religious principles and community norms. They contended that the excommunication was necessary to maintain the sanctity and cohesion of the Sangat. However, they did not provide substantial evidence or legal grounds to support their action.

The Court, in its analysis, expressed shock and dismay at the resurgence of excommunication in the year 2024, highlighting its antiquated nature. The Court emphasized the need for communities to evolve with the times and embrace progressive values, rather than resorting to outdated practices that alienate individuals.

Furthermore, the Court found no justification for the excommunication in the present case, noting the lack of evidence or rationale provided by the appellants. The act was deemed arbitrary and unjustifiable, warranting intervention by the judiciary to protect the rights of the writ petitioner.

The Court, considering a request from the petitioner’s advocate to reduce the costs, decided to lower the amount. The appellants were ordered to pay 25,000/- each to the writ petitioner, who, in turn, undertook to donate the amount to the Gurdwara.

[Gurudwara Chhota Sikh Sangat v. Sardar Lalu Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 4282, decided on 29-04-2024]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Dilip Kumar Maiti, Mr. Uttam Kumar Kamila for the Appellants.

Mr. Sk. Md. Galib, Ms. Sujata Mukherjee for the State.

Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Mr. Abhrajit Roy Choudhury for Respondent 1.

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.