CHANDIGARH – A significant legal battle has commenced in the Punjab and Haryana High Court following a petition challenging the newly enacted “Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026.” The petition argues that the law, which mandates stringent penalties including life imprisonment for sacrilege, is constitutionally flawed and procedurally invalid.
The plea was moved by Simranjeet Singh (43), a resident of Jalandhar, shortly after the legislation was notified in the Official Gazette on April 20, 2026.
The Presidential Assent Dispute
The primary legal hurdle raised by the petitioner concerns Article 254(2) of the Constitution. Because the Act introduces criminal penalties that overlap with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)—a Central legislation—the petitioner contends it falls under the Concurrent List.
“As the provisions are inconsistent with existing Central criminal laws, Presidential assent was mandatory. However, the records show only the Governor’s assent was obtained on April 17,” the petition states.
Under Indian law, when a State law conflicts with a Union law on a Concurrent subject, it typically requires the President’s seal to remain enforceable within that State.
Concerns Over Secularism and Equality
The petition further alleges a violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) and the basic structure of Secularism. The petitioner argues that the Act creates an “exclusive high-penalty framework” specifically for the saroops of the Sri Guru Granth Sahib, while excluding the scriptures of other faiths. This, the plea claims, fails the legal test of equality before the law.
“Manifest Arbitrariness” in Sentencing
A major point of contention is Section 5(3) of the Act, which prescribes life imprisonment for those found guilty of conspiracy to commit sacrilege with the intent to disrupt peace.
The petitioner has questioned the proportionality of this clause, arguing:
-
Equating conspiracy to commit sacrilege with the punishment for murder is excessive.
-
Such sentencing amounts to “manifest arbitrariness,” a legal standard used to strike down laws that are capricious or lack a rational basis.
Impact on Freedom of Speech
The definition of sacrilege under Section 2(bb) has also come under fire. The Act includes acts committed by “words, either spoken or written, or by signs or through electronic means.”
The petitioner contends this definition is:
-
Vague: Lacking the precision required for criminal statutes.
-
Restrictive: Failing the standard of “reasonable restriction” under Article 19.
-
Chilling: Likely to create a “chilling effect” on free speech and digital expression.
What Happens Next?
The Punjab government has previously defended the legislation as a necessary step to maintain communal harmony and address long-standing public sentiment regarding sacrilege cases in the state.
The High Court is expected to take up the matter for a preliminary hearing in the coming days. If the court finds merit in the petitioner’s arguments regarding the lack of Presidential assent, the Act could face a temporary stay or be declared ultra vires (beyond legal authority).
Leave a Reply