Punjab’s sacrilege Bill is regressive and draconian

Baisakhi day this year saw the Punjab Assembly table a bill that bears the troubling hallmarks of a regressive and draconian law. The Jagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Bill, 2026, passed unanimously in a special session, proposes life imprisonment or, at the very least, a minimum jail term of seven years along with a fine of up to Rs 25 lakh for any person found guilty of desecrating the Guru Granth Sahib. The Bill expands the definition of sacrilege in sweeping and disturbing ways. It moves beyond acts of physical damage such as burning, tearing or theft to encompass spoken, written, symbolic and even electronic expressions that may be construed as hurting religious sentiments. In doing so, it could grant a licence to those who would invoke the fig leaf of “hurt sentiments” to target and silence others. Coming in the run-up to the assembly elections next year , the AAP government appears not merely intent on courting a section of the electorate but also on asserting authority over the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, which has historically controlled gurdwara affairs, by mandating stricter oversight over the publication of the Sikh holy book.

The Bill, the third of its kind, is the most stringent. The first, tabled in 2016 by the Akali-BJP government, was rejected by the Centre for discriminating against other religions, while the second, brought in during the Congress government in 2018, did not receive the Governor’s assent. Its introduction comes more than a decade after a series of sacrilege incidents rocked the state in 2015. On June 1 that year, the Guru Granth Sahib was stolen from a gurdwara in Burj Jawahar Singh Wala village in Faridkot. Four months later, its torn pages were found in neighbouring Bargari village, along with anonymous posters claiming the act was retribution for alleged disrespect to the head of the Sirsa-based Dera Sacha Sauda. The protests that followed were seen to be the final nail in the coffin of the then Akali government. The case drags on, becoming an issue in elections.

Overall Analysis

The editorial strongly criticizes the Punjab government’s proposed sacrilege law, presenting it as excessive, politically motivated, and potentially harmful to democratic freedoms. From the outset, the use of words like “regressive” and “draconian” sets a sharply critical tone, signalling the author’s clear disapproval. The opening paragraph frames the Bill not merely as a legal measure but as one that dangerously expands the scope of what constitutes sacrilege.

The author highlights how the Bill moves beyond punishing physical acts (like damage or theft) to include “spoken, written, symbolic and even electronic expressions.” This expansion is portrayed as vague and overreaching, with language suggesting it could be misused. The phrase “fig leaf of hurt sentiments” is particularly significant — it implies that the protection of religious feelings could become an excuse to suppress dissent or target individuals. The editorial thus raises concerns about freedom of expression, using persuasive and cautionary language.

The piece also introduces a political dimension. By mentioning the timing of the Bill ahead of elections, the author suggests that the ruling government may be using the legislation to gain electoral advantage. The reference to institutional control over the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee adds another layer, implying that the Bill may be about consolidating power as much as protecting religious sentiments.

In the second paragraph, the editorial shifts to a more historical and contextual tone. It traces earlier attempts to pass similar laws and explains why they failed, strengthening the argument that such legislation has long been problematic. The reference to the 2015 sacrilege incidents provides emotional and political context, showing why the issue is sensitive in Punjab. However, the author carefully distinguishes between acknowledging the seriousness of those incidents and justifying an overly harsh law.

The language here becomes more narrative and factual, recounting events like the theft and desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib. Yet, even in this descriptive section, the editorial maintains its critical stance by pointing out how the issue has been repeatedly politicized and remains unresolved. This reinforces the idea that the new Bill is less about justice and more about political maneuvering.

Overall, the editorial uses strong evaluative language, persuasive reasoning, and historical context to argue that the Bill threatens civil liberties and risks being misused under the guise of protecting religious sentiments.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Draconian – extremely harsh or severe (especially laws or measures).
2. Desecrating – treating something sacred with disrespect.
3. Construe – to interpret something in a particular way.
4. Fig leaf – something used to hide the true intention or reality.
5. Assent – official approval or agreement.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial concludes that while protecting religious sentiments is important, the proposed law is overly broad and harsh, posing risks to freedom of expression and democratic principles. It suggests that the Bill is driven as much by political considerations as by genuine concern for religious respect.

Tone: Strongly critical, cautionary, and politically analytical.