Sandhu v Singh & Ors

The court applied ordinary principles of contractual construction to the Gurdwara's written constitution, applying guidance from Marley v Rawlings and other authorities on interpretation and on the implied limits to discretionary powers. The Constitution vests ultimate authority in the congregation and requires an election board of five Singhs to be announced to the congregation and, subject to any legitimate objection by the congregation, to elect a 25‑member Management Committee. The judge held that the 2015 process was vitiated because congregants were denied a genuine and reasonable opportunity to object: the chief of the election board imposed a written‑complaint requirement and asked objectors to leave the worship hall before their objections could be considered. Those procedural failures were fatal to the validity of the election of the five Singhs and, consequently, to any election of the Management Committee by them.

This is a first instance trial concerning the validity of the May 2015 elections at the Guru Nanak Gurdwara, an unincorporated association and registered charity governed by a written constitution. The Part 20 claimants sought declaratory and consequential relief that the five Singhs and the Management Committee elected in May 2015 were not elected in accordance with the Constitution, that they be removed from office, and that the Trustees take over administration and appoint a new election board in accordance with the Constitution.

The court framed sequential issues for decision: the proper construction of the Constitution's election provisions; whether the election board of five Singhs elected on 2 May 2015 was validly chosen; whether the congregation made any legitimate objections on 3 May 2015 to the five Singhs and, if not, whether the five Singhs were thereby recognised; whether the five Singhs validly elected the Management Committee; whether any legitimate objection was made to the announced Management Committee on 10 May 2015; and whether there was any constitutional shortcoming warranting immediate removal of office‑holders.

The judge analysed the Constitution by reference to established authorities on contractual construction and the control of conferred discretions. He concluded that the Constitution gives ultimate authority to the congregation; that the congregation means those assembled for worship on the relevant occasion; and that the congregation must be given a genuine and reasonable opportunity to object. A legitimate objection may be founded on the express qualification and disqualification criteria in the Constitution but, because the Constitution declares the congregation the ultimate decision‑maker, a majority decision of the congregation to object is legitimate so long as it complies with standards of honesty, good faith and absence of arbitrariness.

Applying those principles to the evidence, the judge found that on 3 May 2015 the chief of the outgoing election board required objections to be in writing and asked objectors to leave the worship hall; the congregation were thereby denied a proper opportunity to make and consider objections. That denial was fatal: the five Singhs were not recognised or accepted by the congregation and therefore were not validly elected, and accordingly they had no authority to elect the Management Committee. The judge observed that the Management Committee elected thereafter had acted beyond its powers because it was not validly elected. The judge identified two practicable remedial routes under the Constitution (allow the congregation to consider objections and then proceed, or the Trustees to take over administration and name an election board under paragraph (6) of the election rules) but the operative orders are not set out in the portion of the judgment supplied.

At first instance the court held that the 2015 elections were invalid. The declaratory conclusion was that neither the five Singhs announced on 3 May 2015 nor the Management Committee elected thereafter had been validly elected because the congregation had been denied a genuine and reasonable opportunity to object. The constitutional construction, and the factual finding that the chief required written objections and removed objectors from the worship hall, provided the rationale.