Why Punjab’s new sacrilege law needs careful reconsideration

One troubling aspect lies in Section 4 of the new sacrilege law, which refers to saroops of the Guru Granth Sahib and “parts thereof”. What exactly constitutes a “part thereof”? Does it include sainchis used during readings, Gutka Sahib prayer books kept in homes, or a torn page found in unknown circumstances? The law offers no clarity.

This ambiguity has real consequences. In Khanna, torn pages of a Gutka Sahib were reportedly found with the children of migrant workers. Before such an incident is labelled sacrilege, the law must distinguish between intent, negligence, and ignorance. Without clear definitions, justice becomes guesswork.

Another troubling provision allows prosecution through “speech and other things”. In practice, this means an allegation that someone spoke abusive words against the Guru Granth Sahib could trigger police action. Since the offence is non-bailable, a person may be arrested first and expected to prove innocence later. This reverses the basic principle that investigation should precede punishment.

The fear generated by such provisions is already visible. In rural areas, some families have reportedly begun saying, “Please remove the Guru Granth Sahib from our homes.” This is not because devotion has weakened, but because fear has grown. People worry that complaints, misunderstandings, or public disturbances could expose them to arrest.

Over the years, Satkar Committees have emerged to enforce maryada, but some actions have crossed boundaries. There have been instances of such groups entering private homes, particularly those of Sindhi families, and removing the Guru Granth Sahib on grounds of improper handling. If arrests can now be triggered by verbal complaints, such actions may gain unintended legal backing, deepening fear and social tension.

Theological concern

There is also a theological concern. In Sikh tradition, the Guru is Shabad Guru, the eternal divine word, representing knowledge, reflection, and divine wisdom, not merely a physical object. While the physical saroop deserves the highest respect, treating scripture strictly as a juristic entity risks reducing Sikh philosophy to legal technicality by focusing on form without spiritual context.

Harsh punishment alone has never prevented sacrilege. Past incidents saw violent retaliation and vigilante justice, yet such responses did not end sacrilege cases. The lesson is clear: fear does not eliminate wrongdoing; credible investigation and timely justice do. Many past sacrilege cases remain unresolved because of investigative failures, mishandled evidence, and delays, not because of inadequate laws. The government must explain why earlier cases failed, what obstacles existed, and how those failures will now be corrected.

Equally troubling is the speed with which this law was passed. Legal experts, judges, scholars, and Sikh intellectual institutions should have been widely consulted. Such dialogue could have clarified definitions, aligned the law with Sikh theology, and reduced the scope for misuse. The haste suggests an attempt to shift public attention from unresolved sacrilege cases towards claims of legislative action ahead of the 2027 Punjab elections.

No one argues that sacrilege should go unpunished. Respect for sacred traditions must be preserved. But preservation requires precision. Terms such as “part thereof”, “desecration”, and “speech-related offence” must be clearly defined. Implementation rules should be framed before enforcement begins. Legal experts, scholars, and community representatives should review the law. Most importantly, investigations must be strengthened through forensic inquiry, transparency, and timely prosecution.

The Guru teaches balance between devotion and reason, discipline and compassion. Law must reflect that balance. It should be revisited, not rejected, but refined, so that justice is guided by wisdom, clarity, and understanding, rather than fear.

(Gurpreet Singh is spokesperson, Kendri Sri Guru Singh Sabha, Chandigarh)