In News:

Punjab’s Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026 has reignited the debate over the criminalisation of religious offences in a secular constitutional democracy. The amendment seeks to provide a stronger deterrent against deliberate acts of sacrilege involving the Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.

What does the 2026 Amendment provide?

• The amendment strengthens the existing Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act, 2008 and seeks to prevent and punish acts that violate the sanctity of the Saroops of the Guru Granth Sahib.
• It also changes the terminology from “Bir/Birs” to “Saroop/Saroops” and strengthens the regulatory framework concerning their printing, publication, storage, distribution and supply.
• The offence covers wilful and deliberate sacrilege, including physical damage, defacement, burning, tearing and theft. It also extends to conduct involving speech, writing, visual representation and electronic means where it falls within the statutory definition of sacrilege.
• The law provides for imprisonment ranging from 10 years to life and a fine of ?5 lakh–?25 lakh for the specified aggravated acts.

Important: The Act is specifically concerned with the Guru Granth Sahib; it should not be described as a general Indian “blasphemy law”.

Sacrilege vs Blasphemy

• Sacrilege traditionally refers to the desecration, violation or improper treatment of a sacred object, place or thing, generally involving conduct.
• Blasphemy, on the other hand, primarily concerns expression—such as words, writings, signs or imagery that insult or show contempt towards a religion, deity, prophet, ure or religious beliefs.

The distinction becomes important because the Punjab law extends beyond physical desecration into speech, writing and electronic representation, thereby bringing it closer to the constitutional concerns traditionally associated with laws dealing with religious expression.

Existing Legal Framework under the BNS

India does not have a general offence called “blasphemy”, but the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 contains offences relating to religion.

• Section 298: Punishes destroying, damaging or defiling a place of worship or an object held sacred by a class, with the intention or knowledge that it would insult their religion. Punishment may extend to 2 years, fine or both.
• Section 299: Covers deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings through words, writing, signs, visible representation or electronic means. Punishment may extend to 3 years, fine or both.

Thus, Section 298 is primarily concerned with physical desecration, while Section 299 deals more broadly with religiously offensive expression accompanied by deliberate and malicious intent.

Historical Background: Blasphemy-type Laws in India

The colonial government inserted Section 295A into the Indian Penal Code in 1927 following communal tensions. It criminaliseddeliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens through words, signs or visible representations.

In Ramji Lal Modi v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1957), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 295A. The Court interpreted the provision as targeting deliberate and malicious acts rather than every form of criticism or expression concerning religion.

Constitutional Issues

The central constitutional tension arises between freedom of expression and protection of religious harmony.

Article 19(1)(a) guarantees freedom of speech and expression, while Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on specified grounds, including public order, decency or morality, security of the State, incitement to an offence, etc.

Therefore, merely showing that an expression has hurt religious sentiments may not by itself be sufficient; the State must establish that the restriction falls within a constitutionally recognised ground under Article 19(2).

A broad criminal provision covering speech, writing or electronic representations could also create a chilling effect, discouraging legitimate criticism, academic inquiry, historical research, satire and social reform.

Article 14 and Vagueness

Article 14 guarantees equality before law and protection against arbitrary State action. Criminal laws must be sufficiently clear and certain so that people can reasonably understand what conduct is prohibited.

Therefore, expressions such as “disrespect” or conduct considered likely to “hurt religious feelings” can raise questions regarding objectivity, vagueness and arbitrary enforcement.

Proportionality of Punishment

The law also raises the issue of proportionality. A punishment extending to life imprisonment for sacrilege requires examination of:

• the nature and gravity of the prohibited conduct;
• the accused's intention;
• actual harm caused;
• the availability of less restrictive measures; and
• whether the punishment is proportionate to the objective sought.

The constitutional objective should therefore be protection of religious harmony without unnecessarily restricting legitimate constitutional freedoms.

Why is the Issue Sensitive in Punjab?

Punjab has witnessed recurring controversies and social tensions surrounding alleged sacrilege of the Guru Granth Sahib. The legislation therefore seeks to create a strong deterrent against deliberate acts of desecration.

At the same time, the extension of criminal liability to speech, writing and electronic expression makes the law particularly significant from the perspective of freedom of speech, secularism and criminal-law proportionality.

The law has also generated a debate over the role of religious institutions in the legislative process. In June 2026, the Akal Takht summoned Sikh legislators over objections to the legislation and subsequently directed the Punjab Government to address proposed changes.

Way Forward

A constitutionally sustainable framework should distinguish between deliberate physical desecration and legitimate religious or intellectual expression. The law should contain clear definitions, require proof of deliberate and malicious intent where expression is criminalised, ensure proportional punishment and prevent selective enforcement.

The broader principle is that religious freedom and freedom of expression are not necessarily competing values. A secular constitutional order must protect both while ensuring that criminal law is not used to suppress legitimate criticism or debate.