Punjab High Court puts a stop to the challenge to the sacrilege law

Punjab: Nearly a week after a petition was filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking to strike down the newly amended anti-sacrilege law, the High Court on Wednesday clarified that it would first examine the maintainability of the petition filed in public interest. The state had raised objections to the petitioner’s location and background. A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, “This court will have to seriously examine whether the petition can be entertained or whether it can be dismissed in limbo.” The matter will now be heard further on May 8. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before the bench, State Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi stated that the petitioner’s bar license was suspended because the authenticity of his academic degree was being investigated. Seeking dismissal of the petition, Bedi stated that the petitioner has been declared a habitual offender and his name appears on an internal list of such individuals maintained by the Vigilance Bureau. Bedi stated, “These are the petitioner’s past and credentials.” However, the petitioner submitted that the case raised issues of public importance. The bench was also informed that the petitioner’s relevant facts would be presented to the bench in an affidavit. Furthermore, there was no pending FIR against him, and his academic degree had not been declared invalid. The petitioner was seeking directions to repeal the Jagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026—a law that provides for stringent punishments, including life imprisonment, for sacrilege. Challenging the constitutional validity of the Amendment Act, Simranjit Singh, a resident of Jalandhar, stated that the law was passed by the State Legislature, received the Governor’s assent on April 17, and was notified in the Official Gazette on April 20.
Giving reasons for the challenge, the petitioner stated that the Act in question did not receive the President’s assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. He stated that the Act provides for criminal punishment, including life imprisonment under Section 5(3), which is in the Concurrent List. He further stated, “Because these punishments are different from the existing Indian Penal Code (BNS), the Act required the President of India’s assent under Article 254(2) to become valid. The Gazette confirms that only the Governor’s assent was obtained, rendering the entire Act procedurally invalid and unconstitutional.” The petition also raised the issue of violation of Article 14 and the principle of secularism. It argued that the Act provided a specific high-penalty framework only for the copies of the Jagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib. By excluding other religious texts, it failed the test of equality before the law.
“By excluding other religious texts, the State has failed the test of ‘equality before the law’ and violated the basic structure of the Constitution—secularism.” Upon sentencing, the petitioner questioned Section 5(3), arguing that it mandates life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit sacrilege with intent to provoke a breach of the peace. The petitioner argued that equating such a crime with the punishment for murder is wrong and “manifestly arbitrary” under Article 14. The petitioner further stated, “Treating a non-violent crime against religious sentiments with the punishment for murder is wrong and “manifestly arbitrary” under Article 14.” He also challenged the definition of sacrilege under Section 2(bb), stating that it includes “acts done either by speech or writing, or by gestures or visible means, or by electronic means.” He further argued, “This lack of clarity does not meet the standard of “reasonable restriction” and adversely impacts freedom of speech (Article 19).”