Factional takeover of California gurdwara illegal: US court

The forcible "takeover" of the management of a gurdwara by one of the two factions running its affairs in California was illegal, a US court has ruled and ordered the members to give up their control immediately.
Stanislaus Superior Court found that the group at Turlock Sikh gurdwara, a religious nonprofit spread over 21,000 square feet, acted illegally in taking control of the temple in June 2013.
The court yesterday ruled that the defendants must give up control of the gurdwara's facilities, records and finances immediately, the Turlock Journal reported.
It also prohibited them from serving as officers or directors of the gurdwara for five years.

According to court documents, a rift had developed between two factions over a decision to terminate the contract of Attar Singh, a priest of the gurdwara.
The disagreement turned physical on June 2, 2013, when a fight broke out in front of the temple.

A few weeks after the fight, a group of members changed the locks, took control of the office and corporate records of the gurdwara and began running its affairs.
The directors, who were elected in January 2013, filed a complaint against this group claiming the change occurred by force and without a proper election. The court agreed.

"I am pleased and thankful that this ruling came out," said Harinder Grewal, a member of the gurdwara who testified on behalf of the elected board.
"Nobody should ever use threat of force to take over, not only God's house, but any property or organisation."
Grewal called the ruling "historic" and said it will be a precedent for future court cases involving the hostile takeover of Sikh temples across the US. He alleged that these takeovers happen often and money act as the motivating factor.
The court also ordered that a committee be created to draft a gurdwara membership application to be presented to the court for approval.

Earlier this year, a similar power struggle occured at America's largest gurdwara in California's San Jose. A court, in that case, had ordered re-elections to resolve the dispute between the two factions with clearly "defined agendas".