The Kagyü Office of His Holiness the 17th Karmapa has recently been notified by its legal counsel that a motion designed to bring the litigation over Dharma Chakra Centre, Rumtek Monastery to a swifter conclusion has been unsuccessful. Although the Kagyü Office is disappointed with the news because it will prolong the litigation, the ruling by the Supreme Court of India was not unexpected due to the legal technicalities involved in the underlying suit. The ruling was collateral to the litigation pending in the District Court of Sikkim and has no significant impact on the continuing administration of His Holiness’s Office or Rumtek Monastery. The underlying case will now proceed, and the Kagyu Office is confident that the court system of India will resolve the underlying litigation in a just and expeditious manner.
第十七世噶瑪巴辦公室最近收到律師顧問的來函，告知向錫金法庭之申請欲快速確定隆德法輪中心一案，已遭法院駁回。雖然噶舉對此印度最高法院的裁示遺憾，不 過並不感到意外，因為此案涉及諸多技術問題。此判決與在錫金法庭中處理之案有關連，但不影響法王在辦公室或隆德寺的行政工作。此案仍照法定程序進行。噶舉 辦公室相信印度的司法制度會公正的，並快速的處理此案。

The recent ruling of the Supreme Court case is related to a pending Civil Suit before the learned District Judge (East & North) Sikkim at Gangtok. The suit was filed in 1998 by the Karmapa Charitable Trust, Shri T.S. Gyaltshen, Kunzig Shamar Rinpoche, and Shri Gyan Jyoti Kansakar against the State of Sikkim, The Secretary of Ecclessiastical Affairs and Goshir Gyaltsab Rinpoche. The plaintiffs seek to evict the monks and other occupants of Dhama Chakra Centre, Rumtek and to possess and administer the monastery for their own purposes. We have been advised by our legal counsel that the suit has no merit, and that the defendants to the litigation have numerous defenses to plaintiffs’ claims which will fully protect the activities of the Kagyü Office.
最高法院之裁示和在錫金岡托地區法庭之民事訴訟案有關，此案是1998年由噶瑪巴慈善基金會、 師利嘉臣(Shri T.S. Gyaltshen)、孔吉夏瑪仁波切和師利加覺替康沙卡(Shri Gyan Jyoti Kansakar)提出控訴錫金政府、宗教局秘書長和國師嘉察仁波切。原告請求將法輪中心的僧眾逐出，並由他們擁有主持寺院行政之權。後已通知律師顧問團，原告所提沒有法律依據，此案的被告有充足的理由及證據來反駁原告的控訴，並保障噶舉辦公室的權益。

The Kagyü Office was not included by the plaintiffs in the original suit, and had not sought to become a party to the litigation until an order was issued by the District Court in November 17, 2001, requiring an inventory of sacred items being held at Dharma Chakra Centre. At the urging of interested parties in Sikkim, the Kagyü Office acted to calm the situation in 2002 and bring it to a peaceful resolution. At that time, it became apparent that this vexatious lawsuit could be brought to a speedier conclusion if the Kagyü Office was made a party to the lawsuit. Accordingly, the Kagyü Office asked permission from the Court for the Tsurphu Labrang to be recognized as a party to the original lawsuit by way of a motion to intervene in the lawsuit. This motion of the Tsurphu Labrang to intervene was denied by the District Court by order dated 16 November, 2002. The denial was upheld by order of the High Court of Sikkim on 26 August, 2003, as affirmed by order of the Supreme Court of India on 5 July, 2004.
噶舉辦公室在本案中原不是被告，也無意成為被告，而是由於2001年11月17日錫金法庭要求法輪中心提供中心中之聖物清單。響應錫金關心者的建議，噶舉 辦公室才於2002年出面希望緩和，並及早能和諧解決問題。在那時，很明顯的如果噶舉辦公室介入此一訟案，則此令人耽憂的訴訟案可以提早結束。因此，噶舉 辦公室向法庭請求允許楚布拉布讓成為案中的被告之一。2002年11月16日地區法庭否決了楚布拉布讓介入的提案，2003年8月26日錫金高院支持此判 法，印度最高法院於2004年7月5日再維持此判決。

The litigation now returns to the District Court for further proceedings. Denial of a motion to intervene in a lawsuit does not have any direct effect on the merits of the underlying lawsuit. This principle was reiterated in the denial of the Kagyü Office’s motion to intervene, where the Supreme Court held that “We, however, clarify that the trial court will not take into consideration any observations made in the impugned order or in the order of the District Judge dismissing the application.” The Kagyü Office is confident that the underlying lawsuit to evict and gain possession will eventually be dismissed for lack of merit.
此訴訟案再回到錫金地方法院。法院駁回楚布拉布讓介入一事並不影響本案之法律基本面。此原則在否決噶舉辦公室介入之判決中指出，最高法院認為「我們在此閳明關於否決噶舉辦公室的介入一事，法庭不得以駁斥過程中之理由，或地區法庭否決此提案一事影響原案。 」噶舉辦公室有堅定的信心，原先欲占有法輪中心之案件，會被不受理或被判定無法律上的依據。

The Kagyü Office
噶舉辦公室