A petition has been filed in the Punjab and Haryana high court challenging constitutional validity of Punjab’s anti-sacrilege law — Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026 — notified on April 20.
The anti-sacrilege law, is amended version of a 2008 Act, passed unanimously by the Punjab Vidhan Sabha during a special one-day session on April 13, with support from members of the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and opposition parties, including the Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), after three hours of discussion.
The Act provides for stringent punishments, including life imprisonment and fines up to ₹25 lakh, for acts of sacrilege against the Guru Granth Sahib.
The public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed by an Amritsar resident, Simranjeet Singh, 43, who is a law graduate and claims to be a social activist, and has not engaged a lawyer to present his side before the court.
“The impugned Act creates criminal penalties, including life imprisonment under Section 5(3), which is a subject in the concurrent list.. As these penalties are inconsistent with the existing Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Act required the assent of the President of India under Article 254(2) to be valid,” the plea argues.
The plea also says that the law is in violation of secularism and Article 14. The Act provides an exclusive, high-penalty deterrent framework solely for the saroops of Guru Granth Sahib. By excluding other religious scriptures, the state has failed the test of “equality before law” and violated the basic structure of the Constitution — secularism, it added.
{{/usCountry}}The plea also says that the law is in violation of secularism and Article 14. The Act provides an exclusive, high-penalty deterrent framework solely for the saroops of Guru Granth Sahib. By excluding other religious scriptures, the state has failed the test of “equality before law” and violated the basic structure of the Constitution — secularism, it added.
{{/usCountry}}The petition also states that Section 5(3) mandates life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit sacrilege with intent to disrupt peace. Equating a non-violent offence against religious sentiments with the punishment for murder is disproportionate and “manifestly arbitrary” under Article 14, it claimed.