The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday, April 29, declined to pass any immediate order on a public interest litigation challenging the constitutional validity of Punjab’s newly enacted anti-sacrilege law, saying it would first examine whether the petition was even maintainable.
The petitioner, Simranjeet Singh, who described himself as a law graduate, had not disclosed three FIRs, or first information reports, registered against him. Punjab Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi told the bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry that Singh’s bar enrolment had been withdrawn by the State Bar Council and that the Vigilance Bureau, a state anti-corruption agency, had declared him a habitual complainant. The bench was pointed. “This Court will have to seriously undertake the exercise as to whether the petition can be entertained or not or dismissed in limine,” it said, using the Latin term for dismissal at the threshold without a hearing on merits. Though inclined to hear arguments on the law’s merits, the court adjourned after the Punjab government raised the antecedents issue. Senior Advocate Mandeep Singh Sachdev, with Advocates Rahul Sharma and Meher Sachdev, appeared for the petitioner.
The petition challenged the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, notified on April 23 after the Governor granted assent. It contended that the law introduces life imprisonment without Presidential assent as required under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, which governs legislation on subjects where both central and state governments have the power to make laws, and that a penal framework exclusively for one religious scripture violates the principle of equality before law.
The law’s origins lie in the Bargari sacrilege of 2015, when torn pages of the Guru Granth Sahib, the holy scripture of the Sikhs revered as a living Guru, were found strewn on a road in Punjab’s Faridkot district, triggering widespread protests. The Shiromani Akali Dal government’s mishandling of the situation, and the police firing on peaceful protesters, shaped electoral outcomes in Punjab ever since. When the Aam Aadmi Party, or AAP, swept to power in 2022, it came with a promise to deliver justice in the Bargari case. Kiranjot Kaur, a senior member of the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, or SGPC, the apex body that manages Sikh shrines, wrote in a commentary on April 29 that those promises did not translate into action. Investigations slowed, cases moved out of Punjab, and the government filed no FIR against Dera Sauda Sadh, a religious sect, despite a witness going public on social media.
Punjab had attempted at least three times since 2016 to enact stricter anti-sacrilege provisions by amending central criminal law, but each effort was either returned or left pending without Presidential assent. This time the AAP government amended the existing state-specific Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act, 2008, sidestepping that hurdle. “By modifying an existing state-specific statute instead of altering central criminal law, the government has sought to frame the legislation as a regulatory law concerning the handling and protection of the Guru Granth Sahib, rather than a direct conflict with provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,” India’s recently enacted criminal code, a senior Punjab government official told The Print.
The Punjab Assembly, or Vidhan Sabha, unanimously passed the Bill on April 14 in a special session timed to coincide with Baisakhi, the harvest festival marking the founding of the Khalsa Panth, the community of initiated Sikhs, in 1699. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann called it “a historic correction of past regimes’ failures.” The speed with which the Governor then granted assent raised eyebrows. Kaur suggested in her commentary that it could reflect competitive political positioning by the BJP, the ruling party at the centre whose appointed constitutional authority the Governor is. Critics have noted that on questions of religious identity and majoritarian sentiment, AAP has often mirrored BJP positions. Before the 2022 elections, AAP’s then national convenor Arvind Kejriwal had himself called for a law against religious conversions in Punjab.
The law prescribes a minimum of seven years imprisonment, extendable to 20 years, with fines between Rs 2 lakh and Rs 10 lakh, or approximately $2,150 to $10,750. Where sacrilege is part of a conspiracy to disturb communal harmony, the Act states: “Any person who in criminal conspiracy commits an offence of sacrilege of the Saroop(s) of Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib under this Act with the intention to disrupt peace or communal harmony shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees but which may extend to twenty-five lakh rupees,” roughly $5,375 to $26,900. All offences are non-bailable, meaning the accused cannot be released on bail as a matter of right, and non-compoundable, meaning the parties cannot settle the matter out of court. The law also introduces the concept of a custodian, making every individual, institution, or gurdwara, a Sikh place of worship, receiving a saroop, a physical copy of the Guru Granth Sahib, legally responsible for its safe custody and observance of the Sikh Rehat Maryada, the Sikh code of conduct.
SGPC chief Harjinder Singh Dhami welcomed the law but said effective implementation was equally important. The SGPC’s silence on the law’s more contentious provisions has itself drawn comment. Kaur pointed out that the Act hands over to the state government powers over the printing, storage, and distribution of saroops, a domain that has traditionally belonged to the SGPC.
Critics have raised concerns about misuse. The phrase “Guru Granth Sahib or part thereof” leaves open whether it covers sainchis, portable volumes used during scripture readings, Gutka Sahib prayer books kept in homes, or pages damaged by ordinary wear and tear. The provision allowing prosecution through spoken words, combined with the non-bailable nature of all offences, means arrest could precede investigation. Gurpreet Singh, spokesperson of Kendri Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Chandigarh, a Sikh religious organisation, wrote in a commentary on April 26 that fear was already visible in rural areas, with some families saying, “Please remove the Guru Granth Sahib from our homes.” Kaur described incidents where vigilante groups, known as Satkar Committees, had previously forced their way into private Sikh homes removing the Guru Granth Sahib on grounds of improper handling. The new custodian clause could give such actions legal backing. Section 6 of the Act, which shields state government officers from any suit or prosecution for actions taken under the law, leaves no accountability mechanism for enforcement agencies.
The anxiety is not limited to Sikh families. In April 2023, a local pastor and another man were arrested in Golewala village in Faridkot district after torn pages of the Gutka Sahib were found scattered on a road. Under the new law, such an arrest would be non-bailable from the outset, with officers shielded from legal accountability. Christian community members in Punjab, speaking on condition of anonymity, have expressed deep concern, saying that accusations alone, regardless of proof, can destroy lives.
The haste with which the law was passed, without wide consultation with legal experts, scholars, or Sikh intellectual institutions, has led critics to suggest it is aimed more at electoral optics ahead of the 2027 Punjab Assembly elections than genuine reform. The original sacrilege cases that gave rise to this legislation remain unresolved. As Kaur wrote, the new law will not bring closure to the Bargari sacrilege. “Certainly not,” were her words.
Criminal law remains on the Concurrent List, the category of subjects on which both central and state governments can legislate, keeping open the question of whether the new Act conflicts with central legislation. With a PIL now before the High Court, that question may not remain open for long.
