Punjab Anti-Sacrilege Law Faces Fresh Controversy as Government Expands Protected Sacred Terms; Akal Takht Seeks Major Amendments
State Adds 30 Reverential Words to Sacrilege Investigation List; Sikh Religious Authority Raises Objections, Sparking Debate Over Legislative Process and Religious Autonomy
Punjab’s controversial anti-sacrilege law has entered a new phase of political and religious debate after the state government expanded the list of protected sacred terms by adding 30 additional reverential words used in relation to the Guru Granth Sahib. The move comes amid mounting criticism from the Akal Takht, which has questioned several provisions of the legislation and demanded amendments within one month.
According to an amended circular issued by the Punjab Bureau of Investigation (PBI), investigators handling sacrilege cases will now treat an expanded list of sacred and reverential expressions as protected terminology while examining alleged offences. The revision follows concerns raised by Sikh religious authorities regarding the wording used in the Jaagat Jyot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, particularly the replacement of the traditional term “Bir” with “Saroop” in certain provisions.
The legislation, passed unanimously by the Punjab Assembly in April 2026, introduced some of the country’s toughest punishments for sacrilege involving the Guru Granth Sahib. It provides for imprisonment ranging from a minimum of ten years to life imprisonment, substantial monetary fines, and enhanced penalties where sacrilege is allegedly committed as part of a conspiracy to disturb communal harmony.
However, despite supporting stringent punishment for acts of sacrilege, the Akal Takht has objected to several provisions of the law. The Sikh religious authority argues that certain clauses interfere with matters of Sikh doctrine and religious administration, which it believes should remain exclusively within the jurisdiction of Sikh institutions rather than the State. Among its principal objections are changes in religious terminology, the statutory definition of “custodian,” and provisions governing the handling and regulation of copies of the Guru Granth Sahib.
The dispute escalated when the Akal Takht summoned Sikh ministers and legislators from across political parties to explain why they supported the legislation without broader consultation with Sikh religious bodies. Following the unprecedented meeting, the Akal Takht directed the Punjab Government to amend the disputed provisions within one month and advised that implementation of the law be kept on hold until the concerns are addressed.
The controversy has also triggered criticism of the legislative process itself. Opposition leaders and constitutional commentators have questioned whether members of the Punjab Assembly fully examined the Bill before passing it unanimously. Several critics have argued that enacting legislation involving deeply held religious beliefs without extensive consultation or detailed legislative scrutiny undermines democratic deliberation and risks avoidable conflict between civil authority and religious institutions.
The Punjab Government, led by Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann, has consistently maintained that the legislation is intended solely to protect the sanctity of the Guru Granth Sahib and deter future incidents of sacrilege. The government has argued that the law was enacted after following the constitutional legislative process and reflects long-standing public demand for stronger legal protection of Sikh religious scriptures.
Constitutional experts note that the controversy extends beyond criminal penalties. The central question is whether the State, while empowered to legislate on public order and criminal law, can prescribe terminology, define religious concepts or regulate matters that many within the Sikh community regard as falling exclusively within religious authority. The eventual resolution may therefore shape not only the implementation of Punjab’s anti-sacrilege law but also the broader relationship between legislative power and religious autonomy under the Constitution of India.
