Who should appoint the Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib?

The claim: The SGPC executive should appoint the Jathedar, as it does. SGPC president Avtar Singh Makkar said in November 2015 that "the appointment, removal, duties and tenure of jathedars have been well-defined in the Gurudwara Act 1925" and that the SGPC "is a representative body of Sikh community from all over the country and its validity cannot be challenged" (SikhNet; The Tribune). After the removals of 2025 its secretary Partap Singh said Giani Harpreet Singh went "to preserve the sanctity of the Takht" and called criticism of Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj's installation "propaganda" (The Tribune). On 7 March 2025 the SGPC said a permanent appointment would follow "extensive consultations with Sikh institutions, Jathebandis and Sampradas".

The sourced facts:

• The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 makes the Board the "Committee of Management" of Sri Akal Takhat Sahib (section 85(1)) and seats the "head ministers" of Darbar Sahib and the Takhts on it (section 43). The word "Jathedar" is not in the Act's text on Legitquest. The Institute of Sikh Studies and the International Sikh Confederation said the same in 2014, adding that the Jathedar is in practice an SGPC employee with no written qualifications or service rules, and that an SGPC executive Parbandh Scheme styled the head ministers "Jathedars" (the report dates it 1997, their 2015 paper 1952).
• Before 1920 the Golden Temple "was controlled by the British Deputy Commissioner through a Sikh manager whom he appointed". In October 1920 pilgrims appointed a committee of 25 for the Akal Bunga and Teja Singh Bhuchar was named its first jathedar; the Encyclopaedia does not say by whom.
• On 7 March 2025 the executive removed Giani Raghbir Singh as Akal Takht Jathedar and Giani Sultan Singh at Kesgarh Sahib, and made Gargaj Kesgarh Jathedar with charge of the Akal Takht. The Tribune counted Giani Harpreet Singh's removal in February as the sixth of its kind since 1999; three executive members walked out of that meeting, calling it political.
• Rules were promised before. A five-member SGPC panel formed on 21 January 2015 met once and is "inoperative for over a decade" (The Tribune). On 24 March 2025 president Harjinder Singh Dhami promised rules on qualification, appointment, jurisdiction and retirement, and on 26 June a 34-member panel was formed. The sources opened do not show that rules have been adopted.
• The SGPC house was last elected in 2011; the Act requires an election every five years (The Tribune, 10 October 2026).

The Panthic answer: Panthic bodies say the Takht belongs to the Panth, not to a board, and differ on what follows. Giani Raghbir Singh called the March installation "performed secretly" and a "blatant violation of maryada"; the SGPC said it was curtailed to avoid a "serious law and order problem" (The Tribune). On 14 March the Damdami Taksal and Nihang jathebandis met at Anandpur Sahib, rejected the SGPC's appointees and resolved that norms for appointment and removal be set in consultation with Sikh intellectuals. Forty-two SGPC members asked that norms be framed "only after taking the whole Panth into confidence". Gargaj says "I am the representative of the Panth" and will leave the post the day the Panth finds shortcomings in him (The Week). The Institute of Sikh Studies and the International Sikh Confederation propose a selection independent of the SGPC, by a body "representative of all major constituencies", with the Jathedar not an SGPC employee.

Of Bhai Balwant Singh Rajoana's letter to the acting Jathedar, Bhai Ajmer Singh says that to act on it Gargaj would have to be independent and appointed with the Panth's consent; in his account he was appointed by stealth, at night, so he will do only what the SGPC wants. He says everyone knows the SGPC cannot drink a glass of water without the Badal family's approval, and that in such a crisis it bails out the government. In Vihveen Sadi Di Sikh Rajneeti (ch. 20) he calls the Akal Takht the centre of the Panth's religious and political sovereignty and holds that its rebuilding after 1984 under army and government direction was illegitimate, because it broke the Panth's own authority over its seat.