Petition filed in HC challenging Punjab's sacrilege law, questions life imprisonment
Anti-sacrilege law: A fresh legal challenge has been mounted against the Jagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, with a petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking its quashing. The case is yet to be listed for hearing.
The petition has been moved by Jalandhar resident Simranjeet Singh (43), who has appeared in person to contest the constitutional validity of the recently enacted law. The amendment legislation was cleared by the Punjab Assembly earlier this month, received the Governor’s approval on April 17, 2026, and was officially notified on April 20.
At the heart of the plea is the argument that the law lacks mandatory Presidential assent as required under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner has contended that since the Act introduces criminal provision, including life imprisonment under Section 5(3), it falls within the Concurrent List, thereby necessitating approval from the President. However, official records indicate that only the Governor’s assent was obtained.
The plea also questions the Act on the grounds of equality and secularism. It argues that the legislation creates a stringent legal framework exclusively for the protection of the saroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, while leaving out other religious texts. According to the petitioner, this selective application violates the principle of equality before law enshrined in Article 14.
Another key concern raised pertains to the severity of punishment. The petition challenges the provision that prescribes life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit sacrilege with the intent to disturb public peace. It claims that such a penalty is excessive and disproportionate, drawing parallels with punishments awarded in cases of murder, thereby rendering the provision arbitrary.
The petitioner has also objected to the definition of sacrilege under Section 2(bb) of the Act. The provision includes acts committed through spoken or written words, signs, visual representation or electronic means. The plea argues that this broad wording lacks clarity and may lead to misuse, potentially curbing freedom of expression protected under Article 19.
A copy of the contested law has been submitted in court as part of the petition’s annexures. The matter is expected to come up for hearing in the coming days.
- With inputs from agencies
