Punjab questions maintainability of PIL challenging anti-sacrilege law

The PIL was from an Amritsar resident, Simranjeet Singh, 43, who claims to be a law graduate and also a social activist

The Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday deferred hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging constitutional validity of Punjab’s anti-sacrilege law — Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, after the state government questioned the maintainability of the petition.

During the hearing, Punjab’s advocate general MS Bedi claimed that the petitioner was a “habitual” complaint filer. (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

During the hearing, state’s advocate general MS Bedi claimed that the petitioner was a “habitual” complaint filer and his name figured in the internal list of such persons prepared by the Punjab Vigilance Bureau (VB). Bedi further alleged that the PIL was not maintainable as the petitioner had suppressed information about some material facts about the criminal cases he had been involved in.

In view of this, the bench of chief justice Sheel Nagu and justice Sanjiv Berry deferred hearing for next week, giving time to the petitioner to clarify these allegations.

Earlier, the petitioner’s counsel had submitted that the law required presidential assent before the notification. Hence, it be declared null and void. “It is repugnant to the central criminal laws. Hence, should have been sent for presidential assent. Previous governments, when they had come up with bills on the issue, had done so but did not get presidential nod,” his counsel had told the court.

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 PIL was from an Amritsar resident, Simranjeet Singh, 43, who claims to be a law graduate and also a social activist.

“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 petitioner has argued.

The petition also said 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, the petition said. The petition 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.