Express & Star

Screens 'separating disabled worshippers' at Sikh temple to be removed in landmark deal

Controversial screens which allegedly segregated disabled and elderly worshippers at a Sikh temple will be removed after a deal was made in landmark legal proceedings.

Published

Five disabled worshippers at the Guru Nanak Gurdwara in Blakenhall, Wolverhampton, had brought legal action against the temple's ruling committee claiming they had been discriminated against.

It was alleged that members of the congregation, who are unable to sit on the floor in the usual custom, were being forced to sit behind screens in the prayer hall and dining room.

A trial had been due to start at Birmingham County Court today but a deal was struck between the two sides last week.

The five claimants and fellow worshippers from the Gurdwara gathered outside the court before today's proceedings and afterwards welcomed the deal which has been reached.

The agreement requires bosses to remove all of the screens from both rooms as well as signs which prohibited the use of chairs and wheelchairs.

In addition a lift will be installed providing access to the first-floor prayer hall and "all necessary auxiliary aids" as set out by Wolverhampton council will be permitted, including chairs with arm rests.

The ruling committee must also pay the claimaint's costs as part of the deal, which the claimants say are in excess of £150,000.

The case is believed to be the first of its kind internationally and could impact practices at Sikh gurdwaras up and down the country.

Bhupinder Kaur Chohan, one of the five disabled claimants, said: "Fifty years ago Sikhs were fighting for the right to wear turbans in public in this country.

"Here we are in 2017 fighting for the right to attend the Gurdwara as disabled people without being hidden away and forced to sit like zoo animals behind partitions.

"We have just the same right to worship and pray as everyone else. We should not be made to feel inferior."

At Birmingham County Court today it was confirmed a compromise had been reached and a timescale was set for the changes to be made.

Screens in the dining hall must be removed by Sunday, as must the signs, and screens in the prayer hall within 14 days.

New chairs must be in place within 21 days and the a target date for the lift was set between three and five months.

Judge Alastair Smail ordered a stay of proceedings. Nominal damages will be paid to the claimants as part of the deal.

Judge Smail, said: "This is a compromise with good will on both sides. I can see the Gurdwara has committed itself to modernising in terms of its access for disabled people.

"All institutions have to do that and now the Gurdwara has agreed to that too and I commend that.

"Nominal damages will be paid so the claimants have compromised too.

"I am hoping this is a happy ending as far as it possible can be and I very much hope there are no further applications to this court."

Rajinder Singh Basi, Chair of the Sikh Forum in Wolverhampton, said: "Disabled people are not second class citizens and deserve enjoyment of the same right to worship and attend gurdwaras as everyone else.

"Now the Gurdwara must make changes within a very short space of time and we look forward to them doing so."

On behalf of the temple's ruling committee, a spokesman, said: "The Gurdwara maintains that it provided reasonable adjustments for those members of the congregation with disabilities whilst acting in accordance with the Sikh Rehat Maryada, the Sikh Code of Conduct and Conventions promulgated by the Akal Takhat in Punjab India which is the highest temporal authority in the Sikh faith.

"In reaching this amicable settlement, the Gurdwara would want to send the message that all are welcome with open hands and that the Gurdwara will continue to build on the provision for making suitable provision for the disabled whilst maintaining adherence to the Sikh Rehit Maryada in consultation with the guidance provided by Sikh Council UK."

The spokesman added it is understood the claimants have not yet submitted a costs budget to the courts.

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.