CHANDIGARH – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has hit the pause button on a high-profile challenge to Punjab’s stringent new anti-sacrilege law. On Wednesday, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry shifted the focus from the law’s constitutionality to the credibility of the man challenging it, questioning whether he had suppressed his own criminal and professional history.
The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by Jalandhar-based activist Simranjeet Singh, seeks to strike down the Jagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026. While the petition raises heavy constitutional questions, the court made it clear: the messenger will be scrutinized before the message.
The “Clean Hands” Conflict
The hearing took an abrupt turn when the Punjab government, represented by Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi, launched a scathing attack on the petitioner’s background. The State alleged that Singh had failed to disclose “material facts,” including:
-
Criminal Record: The existence of three prior FIRs registered against him.
-
Professional Standing: The suspension of his license to practice law by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.
-
Academic Scrutiny: Investigations into the genuineness of his academic degrees.
-
Litigation History: Being characterized as a “habitual complainant” by the Vigilance Bureau.
The Bench observed that it must first determine if the petition is maintainable or if it should be dismissed in limine (at the threshold). “This Court will have to seriously undertake the exercise as to whether the petition can be entertained or not,” the Bench remarked, emphasizing the legal doctrine that a petitioner must approach the court with “clean hands.”
The Constitutional Stakes
Despite the procedural delay, the legal arguments at the heart of the PIL remain significant. Singh’s counsel argued that the 2026 Act—passed unanimously by the Punjab Assembly earlier this month—is fundamentally flawed for three reasons:
-
Lack of Presidential Assent: Since criminal law falls under the Concurrent List, the petitioner argues that under Article 254(2), the Act requires the President’s signature because it overlaps with the central Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). Currently, it holds only the Governor’s assent.
-
Disproportionate Punishment: The law prescribes a minimum of 7 years’ imprisonment, extending to life imprisonment for conspiracies. The PIL argues this equates a non-violent offense with murder, calling it “manifestly arbitrary.”
-
Secularism Concerns: The petitioner contends that by exclusively protecting the saroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib and excluding other religious texts, the law violates the principle of equality under Article 14.
Government’s Defence
The Punjab government maintains the law is a necessary response to the state’s turbulent history of sacrilege incidents, aimed at preserving communal harmony and social peace. They argue the state has the sovereign right to protect religious sentiments through escalated penalties.
What’s Next?
The Court has adjourned the matter until next week. It has directed the State to furnish all evidence regarding the petitioner’s antecedents so he may file a formal response.
If the court finds that Singh wilfully concealed his history, the PIL could be dismissed with heavy costs. If he clears the “clean hands” test, the High Court will then dive into the “deep constitutional waters” of whether a state can unilaterally impose life imprisonment for sacrilege.
Leave a Reply