'Akal Takht' Lays Bare Gaps in How Anti-Sacrilege Law Was Passed

June

2026

All 78 Sikh Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) and nine Cabinet Ministers of Panjab appeared before the Sri Akal Takht Sahib (Eternal throne, AT) in Amritsar on 29 Jun. AT had summoned them over the anti-sacrilege law Jaagat Jyot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, passed in April 2026. Non-Sikh Cabinet Ministers were asked to submit their views in writing, whereas Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann was not summoned. AT Jathedar (leader) Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargajj started the meeting by asking the MLAs if they had read the Bill before passing it. The MLAs, across parties—the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), opposition Indian National Congress (INC), Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD)—admitted they had not read the Bill. INC’s Pagat Singh said the draft Bill had become available to them after 9 pm on 12 Apr, and the Bill was passed on 13 Apr. AAP MLA Inderbir Singh Nijjar requested that proceedings be not telecast live. AT, however, insisted on live telecast. SAD MLA, Ganieve Kaur Majithia, shared that in the Panjab Assembly, if anyone objects to what the ruling AAP wants, they are ridiculed, and as a woman she is slandered. When INC’s Sukhpal Khaira started speaking, AAP legislators created a ruckus and had to be admonished by Giani Gargaj. Giani Gargajj clarified that AT had no objection to stringent punishment for acts of sacrilege but the interpretation of Sikh doctrine, in accordance with the Guru Granth Sahib (Sikh scripture and charter, GGS) and the Guru Panth (Leadership of Sikh Collective), falls within the authority of AT and the Panth—not within the legislature. He objected to the law defining Sikh religious terminology and traditions. He raised issues like replacing the word Bir with Saroop (both meaning tomes), introducing the term 'custodian' without clarifying it, assigning unique identification numbers to GGS saroops, placing records online, and prescribing the duties of custodians. The Jathedar said the objections must be addressed within one month and the legislation should remain on hold until the necessary amendments are made. He also suggested that any law dealing with sacrilege, should include provisions to initiate legal action against heads of those outfits which wilfully commit sacrilege and shelter offenders. The larger issue of state legislating Sikh affairs remains unaddressed (earlier coverage).