Sacrilege law sparks fear, not faith

THE Jaagat Jyot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Bill, 2026, which was recently passed by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha, has raised concerns among a section of Sikhs. At the heart of it is a fundamental question — should a Sikh's personal and spiritual relationship with Guru Granth Sahib be brought under a legal and administrative framework?The roots of the new Act can be traced to the Bargari sacrilege incident of 2015. It triggered widespread protests across the state. The then Shiromani Akali Dal government mishandled the situation and its political fallout continues to shape electoral outcomes.When the Aam Aadmi Party assumed power in 2022, it came with a promise of delivering justice in the Bargari sacrilege case. Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh, who investigated the police firing on peaceful protestors in Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan, was given a party ticket as a sign of its honest intent.However, on assuming power with a massive majority, the promise did not translate into a concrete outcome. Investigation slowed down, the cases were shifted out of Punjab and key allegations remained unaddressed. No effort was made to file an FIR against Dera Sacha Sauda head Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh despite a witness going public on social media.As Punjab moves closer to the upcoming Assembly elections in 2027, the political narrative has shifted. Gurjeet Singh, sitting atop a BSNL tower, was the perfect example for the AAP to address public anger against unresolved sacrilege cases. The protestors demanded stricter legal provisions.Responding to the public sentiment, the Punjab government proposed the Prevention of Offences against Holy Scripture(s) Bill, 2025. The holy scriptures included Guru Granth Sahib, the Gita, the Koran and the Bible. It met with resistance from Sikhs. The other scriptures do not have the kind of status in their respective religions that Guru Granth Sahib has in Sikhi.Also, demands from other deras and sects complicated the issue. CM Bhagwant Mann set up a meeting with the Sant Samaj in Amritsar where the Sant Samaj pointed out the unique status of the "Living Guru" of Guru Granth Sahib. The proposed Bill was given a quiet burial.On April 13, 2026, Bhagwant Mann announced the alternative: the government would amend the existing Jaagat Jyot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act, 2008. This Act was passed only for the purpose of giving the SGPC all rights to print, store and distribute copies of Guru Granth Sahib. Now, it has been expanded to include custody, protection and offences.The new Act transforms the Sikh religious code of conduct into a state-regulated domain. The language and terminology used challenges the Sikh doctrine. Mann introduced the amendment Bill by replacing the word 'Bir' used for Guru Granth Sahib in the original 2008 Act by the word 'Saroop'.He justified it by referring to the 'doha' — "Guru Granth ji maneyo pargat guran ki deh" — sung in every gurdwara after Ardaas. This line is not meant to objectify the Bir, but it sets the tone for the Maryada to be followed. The line does not exist in Guru Granth Sahib. In an exaggerated show of respect, the CM referred to 'panne' (pages) as "ang" (body parts), another departure from the Sikh vocabulary.Traditionally, we refer to a copy of Guru Granth Sahib as "Bir"; Kartarpuri Bir, Damdami Bir is used for specific Birs. "Bir" means compiled and bound together. Guru Granth Sahib has the 'bani' of various bhagats and Gursikhs, besides the Sikh Gurus in a Bir. Sikhs follow Guru Nanak Dev's doctrine of "Sabad Guru, surt dhun chela."The amendment Bill has introduced the concept of "custodian". It refers to an individual, institution or gurdwara to whom a Bir has been formally supplied and makes them legally responsible for its "protection" and observance of the prescribed Sikh Rehat Maryada.The custodian shall ensure "safe custody, protection from damage, misuse or loss in any manner" which raises concerns that individuals could become automatic suspects in cases of alleged sacrilege. Homes may be subjected to scrutiny and intervention. Existing vigilantism would gain legal backing.I have witnessed such incidents. A vigilante group once raided a Sikh family's home in Amritsar early in the morning and forcibly took away the Bir, alleging beadbi. The reason given — the family did not do Parkash at 4 am.Individual homes are not bound to do Parkash and Sukhasan at gurdwara timings. On reporting the incident to the then ACP Amritsar, he justified the action of the Satkar Committee. The Satkar Committee claimed to have taken permission of the local non-Sikh SHO to enter the private residence.The Bir was returned when the SGPC wrote a complaint to the Police Commissioner of Amritsar, seeking the suspension of the SHO for encouraging trespass into a private home. The new Act gives legal power to the SHO to check every place which has Parkash of Guru Granth Sahib.In another case, the room of Guru Granth Sahib caught fire because of short circuit in the AC. Before the SGPC could reach the family, the local police called a Satkar Committee member to look into the matter.They came in hordes, trying to bulldoze the young owner of the house into admitting that he was responsible for "beadbi". They refused to see the situation and their leader categorically said their agenda was to remove Birs from individual homes. Under the new Act, the owner of the house and "custodian" of the Bir can be booked for such "beadbi".The Act includes "Guru Granth Sahib or part thereof." Parts of Gurbani are in the form of Gutka, Pothi, Sainchi and books related to the Sikh religion. It could criminalise natural wear and tear and accidental damage, for example, because of electrical fault, fire, etc.Anyone who reads Paath from the Gutka regularly knows that over a period of time, the binding becomes loose and pages break free. The paper of old Birs of Guru Granth Sahib gets fragile and brittle over time. Sometimes, it may become torn. All this will also be a crime under the new Act. Already, many Sikh families have given away their Birs because of this vigilantism. The new Act raises the fear that a common Sikh religious practice could become legally risky. Many more families could move away.The lightning speed with which the Governor of Punjab gave his assent to the Bill raised eyebrows. It could be competitive political positioning of the BJP. It suits the broader strategy of the BJP of assimilating Sikhs and reinterpreting their history to their political advantage.Equally significant is the question of enforcement. Offence under this Act is non-bailable and non-compoundable, but no accountability of the law-enforcing agency has been outlined.Under Section 6, "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the State Government or its officers or officials in respect of anything", thereby giving them a free hand. The possibility of the state interpreting and enforcing aspects of Sikh Rehat Maryada — traditionally a matter of religious guidance — has added to the unease.What will the boundary be between governance and faith?While there is broad agreement on the need to address sacrilege seriously, strengthening Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code may have been a less intrusive alternative.The silence of the SGPC over this issue is deafening. The Act hands over power to the state government to monitor printing, storage and distribution of the Birs. Every Bir's location is to be put in the public domain, making the custodians sitting ducks for harassment! The question is: can the state protect religious sanctity without encroaching on religious autonomy? The answer to that question will define not just the future of this law, but also the nature of state-religion relations in Punjab.The last question: will it bring closure to the Bargari sacrilege case? Certainly not.

Sacrilege law sparks fear, not faith

Homes may be subjected to scrutiny and intervention. Existing vigilantism would gain legal backing.

Kiranjot Kaur

Unlock Premium Insights in This Article