Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) president Harjinder Singh Dhami on Saturday appeared before Akal Takht Jathedar Kuldeep Singh Gargaj and Takht Damdama Sahib Jathedar Tek Singh Dhanaula in Amritsar to present his clarification on allegations that he had violated the Akal Takht’s December 2, 2024, directives. After the meeting, Dhami denied any act of disobedience.
Dhami’s Clarification and Allegations
Speaking to media after the meeting, Dhami, without naming Akali Dal (Waris Punjab De) leader Manpreet Singh Ayali, said certain individuals had questioned his decision to resign from a seven-member committee constituted by the Akal Takht. Dhami maintained that he had not committed any act of disobedience. “I had presented my position to then Akal Takht Jathedar Giani Raghbir Singh, and today I have again explained my position to Jathedar Kuldeep Singh Gargaj. The decision on the matter now rests with the Jathedars,” he said.
Background of the Akal Takht Directives
On December 2, 2024, the Akal Takht had held Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) president Sukhbir Singh Badal and several former party leaders guilty of religious misconduct. The Takht directed the SAD Working Committee to accept Badal’s resignation as the party president, withdrew the “Fakhr-e-Qaum” title given to former Chief Minister Parkash Singh Badal, and formed a seven-member committee to oversee the party’s membership drive and organisational elections. Dhami said he was appointed the chairman of that committee.
Dhami’s Resignation and Response
Dhami explained that he had resigned as SGPC president due to personal reasons and simultaneously submitted his resignation from the committee to the Akal Takht Secretariat. In recent days, Ayali and leaders of the Akali Dal (Punar Surjit) alleged that Dhami violated the Akal Takht directives by resigning from the committee, and demanded he be summoned by the supreme temporal seat of the Sikhs. Responding to these allegations, Dhami voluntarily appeared before the Akal Takht to explain his position. He reiterated that his resignation was a personal matter and did not constitute defiance of the Takht’s orders.
