Analysis
In October 1987, the Birmingham Gurdwara (a Sikh place of worship) was purchased by four individuals and then by a deed dated 15 January 1991 the original trustees declared trusts of this property. They were trustees of the religious organisation following the teaching of His Holiness the First Holy Saint resident at Nirmal Kutia in the Punjab India ‘or his successor’. Clause 5 of the trust deed allowed the First Holy Saint ‘or his successor’ to remove trustees and appoint new trustees.
Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj (the ninth claimant) purported to retire the existing trustees and appoint new ones due to his position as the ‘successor’ of the First Holy Saint.
Similarly, a second Gurdwara in High Wycombe was subject to a trust deed dated 20 September 1993 and the deed stated that trustees could only be removed or appointed by the First Holy Saint ‘or his successor’ and the ninth claimant purported to appoint several of the claimants as trustees in place of the existing defendant trustees.
The question arose as to whether the ninth claimant was the ‘successor’ to the FirstHoly Saint and therefore could validly remove the existing Trustees and appoint substitutes.
The claimants view was the case was a matter of construction of the English trust deeds and they could prove the ninth claimant was the Mukhia (or head) of Nirmal Kutia and therefore the ‘successor’ within the meaning of the deeds. Litigation in India had already upheld his claim to be the Head of Nirmal Kutia and the claimants believed the case was within the jurisdiction of the court to uphold public trusts and their due administration.
Under an earlier case management decision the judge excluded expert evidence of Indian law and of Sikh practice and therefore the issues had to be decided in accordance with English law.
The defendants did not believe the ninth claimant was the ‘successor’ as he had not been appointed by the will of the previous Holy Saint who had died intestate. The defendants felt that his claim could not be answered unless the court considered the disagreements between the two parties about the internal governance of the religious affairs of the Gurdwaras. The court would have to compare the doctrines of mainstream Sikhism and the Nirmal Kutia organisation and this was not a decision for the courts. On 12 September 2011 HHJ Cooke dismissed the defendants’ application to strike out the proceedings on the grounds of non-justiciability of disputes about Sikh doctrine and practice. The defendants appealed.
There was no doubt that both trusts were charitable trusts and the Attorney General was joined as a party but took no part in the appeal.
Held (allowing the appeal and striking out the proceedings):
(1) The High Court judge erred in treating the core issue as one that was properly justiciable by the English courts.
(2) This case differed from cases involving civil rights such as employment rights or property or contract in a religious context where the court has exercised its jurisdiction. Historically, the courts have abstained from adjudicating on the merits of differences in religious doctrine or belief and on the accuracy of religious practice. The principle of non-justiciability applies to religious groups and institutions which are not established by law as part of the state. The established constitutional position of the Church of England places it in a different position.
(3) The court was being asked to decide if a particular person was a holy person and a spiritual leader equipped with powers affecting the internal governance of a religious organisation. This was not a question of law and was incapable of being proven by direct evidence or by inference.
(4) The court could not pronounce on matters of religious doctrine and practice with any degree of confidence or credibility. The question being asked was whether the ninth claimant matched the description of the ‘successor’. Given that the court would not hear evidence on religious belief and practice, there was no objective criteria for the court to use to reach a decision.
(5) The vocabulary of the trust deeds did not answer the question and gave no criteria to be applied to determine the ‘successor’. To determine the answer involves investigating the doctrine and practices of Sikhism and this issue is not justiciable by the English courts. The conflict is this case is not of objective evidence but rather differing beliefs on who is the ‘successor’.
(6) The parties should consider a form of alternative resolution procedure rather than continuing to ask the courts to determine a question the courts are unable to answer.
JUDGMENT LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY: Introduction [1] These proceedings, which were instituted on 25 June 2008, originated in disputes about the trusteeship and governance of two Gurdwaras used by members of the Sikh community as meeting places for religious worship. One Gurdwara is in Birmingham. The other is in High Wycombe. [2] The claim and the …Continue reading "Khaira & ors v Shergill & ors [2012] EWCA Civ 983"