With reference to my post on issuing summons to Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji by civil judge (Ramandeep Neetu seen above in picture) in Patiala seems to me her ignorance.
How Indian Courts issue orders mockingly is evident from this post.
In a judgment entitled Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar v. Som Nath Dass and others delivered on March 29, 2000, the Supreme Court of India has held that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person.
Sri Guru Granth Sahib ji ik juristic person ne par lod pain te Gurudware de parbandhak ohna wallon Court vich hazar honge;
According to the Supreme Court, “A legal person is any entity other than human being to which law attributes personality” Further, “the very words ‘Juristic Person’ connote recognition of an entity to be in law a person which otherwise it is not. In other words, it is not an individual natural person but an artificially created person which is to be recognized in law as such” .
The highest court held that no endowment or juristic person depends on the appointment of a manager. It may be proper or advisable to appoint such a manager while making any endowment but in its absence, it may be done either by trustees or courts in accordance with law. Mere absence of a manager does not negative the existence of a juristic person…. Once endowment is made, it is final and irrevocable. It is onerous duty of the persons entrusted with such endowment, to carry out the objectives of this entrustment. They may appoint a manager in the absence of any indication in the trust or get it appointed through court. So if entrustment is to any juristic person, mere absence of a manager would not negate the existence of a juristic person.
The majority in the High Court had accepted all these arguments of the respondents. The Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal, observed that the High Court committed a serious mistake of law in holding that Guru Granth Sahib was not a juristic person and in allowing the claim over this property in favour of the respondents. The hon’ble judges of the Supreme Court said, “In this background and on over all considerations we have no hesitation to hold that GGS is a juristic person… We unhesitatingly hold Guru Granth Sahib to be a “Juristic Person”..
She should have consulted her seniors before issuing such silly order which could push the state in troubles. It has hurt religious sentiments of Sikhs but we never instigated Sikh nation (as we have a copy in relevance to this judgement) on this judgement by Supreme court of India. It consists 15 pages as follows:-
I tried to get the contact number of Maddemajra Gurudwara committee so that i could contact them and given the said copy. Anyone who is in their touch may kindly forward my phone number 9818610698, Delhi. I shall give them full support by all means.
See the pages of the said judgement where its clearly mentioned that SGGS is a juristic person, land/property can be registered in it’s name but can’t be summoned in Court.
In such a case the Manager or head of committee shall appear in Court.
Ajmer Singh Randhawa.