The attempt by the Aam Aadmi Party government in Punjab to enact a stringent anti-sacrilege law is neither novel nor unexpected. Earlier, efforts by regimes led by the Shiromani Akali Dal-Bharatiya Janata Party alliance and the Indian National Congress had failed to secure gubernatorial approval.
Undeterred, the present administration has introduced the Jagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Sataar Amendment Bill, 2026, which sailed through the assembly unanimously in a special session. Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has expressed confidence that the Bill will pass muster since it amends an existing 2008 law rather than creating a new framework.
Yet, the substance of the amendment is far from modest. It prescribes a minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment, extendable to life, along with fines ranging from Rs 5 lakh to Rs 25 lakh for acts deemed sacrilegious, marking a dramatic escalation from the earlier law’s relatively mild penalties.
Incidentally, the 2008 law was essentially intended to allow the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) to retain a monopoly over the printing and distribution of the Guru Granth Sahib. It was not a tool against sacrilege.
Unanimity raises concerns
The unanimity with which the Bill was passed is itself cause for unease. Even those harbouring reservations chose silence, wary of being branded as sympathetic to sacrilege. Such a climate of fear reveals the deeper peril embedded in laws of this nature. To pre-empt constitutional objections, the Bill extends its ambit to other sacred texts such as the Bhagavad Gita, the Quran, and the Bible, ostensibly preserving secular balance.
Yet, the question remains whether the state should enter the fraught domain of faith at all. Sikhism, a relatively young but resilient religion, has flourished for over five centuries without reliance on such punitive safeguards.
Moreover, existing provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita already address acts that disturb public order or incite communal tensions. There is little empirical evidence to suggest a surge in sacrilege cases warranting such draconian measures.
Lessons from global experience
Experience from elsewhere offers sobering lessons. In Pakistan, blasphemy laws have frequently been weaponised to settle personal vendettas or dispossess vulnerable minorities, particularly Christians. The chilling effect extends even to the judiciary, where acquittals can invite violent reprisals.
The assassination of Salman Taseer by his own guard for defending an accused woman remains a stark reminder of the dangers. Should Punjab’s Bill receive assent, it risks setting a precedent for similar legislation across states, blurring the line between genuine offence and legitimate inquiry.
It is often difficult to distinguish sacrilege from scholarship and dissent from disrespect. The heavens have not fallen in Punjab for lack of such a law, nor is divine protection contingent on legislative zeal. Lawmakers would do better to focus on governance and public welfare rather than assuming the role of custodians of the sacred.
