Punjab’s decade-long journey towards a formal sacrilege law, Pg9

Key Highlights:

• Punjab enacted the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, which mandates life imprisonment for sacrilege against the Guru Granth Sahib.
• The Governor of Punjab gave assent to the bill in April 2026, bringing it into immediate force.
• This new law amends an existing state statute, bypassing the need for Presidential assent by arguing it falls within the state's legislative competence.
• Previous attempts in 2016 (Akali Dal-BJP government) and 2018 (Congress government) to pass sacrilege laws were returned by the Centre or President due to constitutional objections.
• The Aam Aadmi Party government's Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scripture(s) Bill, 2025, which covered multiple religious texts, was introduced but later sent to a select committee and effectively shelved.
• The Anglican Church of India has challenged the 2026 Act in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, arguing it violates the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Detailed Insights:

• The 2016 bill was rejected as it protected only one religion's scripture, conflicting with India's secular Constitution.
• The 2018 bill, which extended life sentences to the Guru Granth Sahib, Bhagavad Gita, Quran, and Bible, was also returned without Presidential assent.
• The 2026 Act revives the objection of singling out one faith, potentially lacking an "intelligible differentia" and "rational nexus" for communal harmony.
• The mandatory minimum sentence, including life imprisonment, raises concerns about proportionality and judicial discretion, echoing issues in Mithu versus State of Punjab.
• Criminal law is on the Concurrent List, and a state law repugnant to a central enactment like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita requires Presidential assent under Article 254.
• The Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai versus Union of India declared secularism part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution.
• Article 25 guarantees religious freedom but subjects it to public order, morality, and health, allowing the state to legislate for social welfare.
• Article 19(1)(a) guarantees free speech, but Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions in the interest of public order, decency, or morality.
• The Shreya Singhal versus Union of India case struck down Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, highlighting issues with vague terms and chilling effects on free speech.
• The Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India case established that "procedure established by law" under Article 21 must be just, fair, and reasonable.

Key Concepts Involved:

• Sacrilege Law: Legislation criminalizing acts of disrespect or desecration towards religious objects or texts.
• Secularism: A constitutional principle ensuring the state maintains neutrality and impartiality towards all religions.
• Basic Structure Doctrine: A judicial principle that certain fundamental features of the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament.
• Concurrent List: A list in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution where both the Union and State governments can legislate.
• Presidential Assent: The approval of the President required for certain bills, especially those on the Concurrent List that may conflict with central laws, to become law.
• Intelligible Differentia: A legal test requiring a classification to be based on a rational distinction.
• Rational Nexus: A legal test requiring the distinction to have a reasonable connection to the objective of the law.