This weekend, London’s historic Lincoln’s Inn hosted the opening of the Sikh Court, a self-declared alternative dispute resolution (ADR) body meant to settle conflicts within the Sikh community. Organizers say it will ease pressure on the UK’s overburdened legal system. But critics worry it could create legal divisions and raise concerns about integration in a diverse society.
What Is the Sikh Court?
The Sikh Court, led by lawyers and judges like Baldip Singh, follows a “Med-Arb” (mediation-arbitration) model. It includes about 30 magistrates and 15 judges—many of them women—who will handle family and civil disputes. Supporters claim it will:
- Reduce pressure on UK courts, which are facing long delays.
- Work alongside the national legal system.
- Uphold Sikh traditions through community-based solutions.
However, the judges will rule based on Sikh principles that they have defined themselves, raising questions about impartiality and fairness. Unlike UK courts, this system was not established through a democratic process or public consultation—especially with Sikh women.
A Divided Justice System?
The Sikh Court follows a path similar to Sharia councils, which have operated in the UK for years. While these religious courts say they complement national law, critics see major problems:
- Unequal treatment – Religious tribunals often lack transparency and may disadvantage women, LGBTQ+ individuals, and vulnerable groups.
- Weakening of national law – If communities govern themselves separately, it challenges the idea that one law applies to everyone equally.
- Social division – Running faith-based courts could isolate communities instead of bringing them together.
Legal expert Charlotte Proudman warns that alternative courts could lead to a “two-tier justice system” where marginalized groups receive lower-quality legal outcomes.
Sikh Court and Women’s Rights
One of the biggest concerns is how the Sikh Court will handle cases involving women. It has announced plans to mediate issues like “low-level domestic violence,” anger management, gambling, and substance misuse. If mediation fails and both sides agree, the court can issue legally binding decisions under the UK’s Arbitration Act.
Critics question how women’s consent will be ensured and who gets to define “low-level” domestic violence. Many minority women, when facing abuse, experience pressure to stay silent or keep their family together. Unlike the UK legal system, which provides legal representation and protections, faith-based courts risk reinforcing existing power imbalances and limiting women’s options.
Integration vs. Separation
Across the world, immigrant communities face the challenge of keeping their traditions while adapting to the laws of their new country. The Sikh Court raises the question: Should faith-based dispute resolution override national law?
In the UK, people who choose to live here accept the country’s legal system. Britain’s Sikh community, like all groups, benefits from UK laws and protections. Opting for religious courts suggests that British law is secondary to community authority.
As one politician bluntly put it: “If you want Sharia or Sikh courts, why not live under them? Britain’s laws are Britain’s laws.”
What Comes Next?
The Sikh Court could set a precedent for other faith-based legal bodies. If this model is accepted, what stops evangelical Christians, ultra-Orthodox Jews, or other religious groups from forming their own courts? This could result in a fragmented legal system with different rules for different communities.
Already, Hindu groups in Leicester are considering similar courts. This trend moves the UK from multiculturalism to multi-legalism.
A Better Solution: Strengthen the UK Legal System
There’s no doubt that the UK’s courts are overwhelmed, but the answer isn’t separate legal systems. Instead, the government should:
- Invest in more judges to reduce case backlogs.
- Expand culturally sensitive mediation within the UK legal framework.
- Ensure that all legal decisions are based on citizenship, not faith or cultural identity.
Baldip Singh and his supporters argue that the Sikh Court honors their ancestors’ sacrifices. But real progress means empowering communities within the UK legal system—not creating separate ones.