Punjab Finance Minister and AAP leader Harpal Singh Cheema and others offer prayers at the Golden Temple after appearing before the Akal Takht Sahib in connection with the Jagat Jyot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026 in Amritsar. (PTI)
Sri Akal Takht Sahib has raised several objections to the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, Punjab’s anti-sacrilege law, arguing that it interferes with matters that fall solely under Sikh religious authority.
The Akal Takht recently issued a summons to all Sikh legislators and cabinet ministers of Punjab to explain their support for the law without properly consulting with it, the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) or other ‘panthic’ bodies. The Takht is the highest temporal (worldly/political) seat of the Sikhs.
Passed in April, the law has been criticised for expanding the definition of sacrilege to include “hurt sentiments”. In relation to the Bill, the Akal Takht declared Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann “panth virodhi” (opposed to the panth), and issued an edict calling for his boycott over an objectionable video.
The events have also prompted the Punjab BJP and the SAD to criticise the AAP government. Here’s a point-wise breakdown of the objections.
1. Replacement of “Bir/Birs” with “Saroop/Saroops”
The Akal Takht objected to removing the traditional term “Bir,” used in Sikh Rehat Maryada for centuries to refer to a physical copy of the Guru Granth Sahib, which is also regarded as a living Guru by the faithful.
It argued that terminology related to Sri Guru Granth Sahib must be decided by the Khalsa Panth, not the government. It demands that “Bir/Birs” be retained, with “Saroop/Saroops” (another term for the Guru Granth Sahib) alongside, if needed, not as a replacement.
2. Definition of “Custodian”
The new clause under the law, defining custodians (devotees, committees, Granthis, Sewadars), is seen as a move to fix sacrilege-related responsibility on ordinary Sikh caretakers, creating some apprehensions within the community.
The Takht argued that no human can be “custodian” of the Guru, and decisions about who holds a Saroop are purely internal Sikh matters already overseen by Sri Akal Takht Sahib. However, AAP leaders and CM Mann have publicly spoken of custodians in the context of close relatives of mentally unfit sacrilege accused, stating the new law will ensure they are punished under the law.
3. Central Register with Unique Identification Numbers (UIN)
The Akal Takht rejected the provision for assigning unique numbers to each copy of the holy book for creating a central register, describing it as tampering with their sanctity. The Takht insisted only the Shiromani Jatha/Guru Panth’s representative body, not the Punjab Assembly or government, can decide such matters, and that the SGPC’s existing administrative system is sufficient.
4. Public online disclosure of records
The Takht raised strong objections to the provision on uploading custodian/location records on the SGPC website, citing privacy risks and potential misuse. It even references the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, when voter lists were used to target Sikhs, warning that digitised records could enable similar targeting globally, since Saroops are distributed worldwide, not just in Punjab.
5. Duties of custodians
Under the law, duties including safe custody of the holy book and ensuring its protection from damage have been specified for custodians.
This has been termed as government overreach into internal Sikh religious administration, and the Takht has demanded its complete removal.
6. Punishment clause
The proposed five-year imprisonment and Rs 10 lakh fine for the offence of sacrilege has been opposed over concerns about it unfairly targeting Sewadars, Granthis, and Gurdwara committees.
The Takht has said that this provision could be misused for personal vendettas and false cases, causing discord within the community.
7. Rule-making power
A broader objection is that the government retains unilateral rule-making authority without consulting SGPC or Akal Takht Sahib. In response, the Takht has demanded mandatory consultation before any rules are finalised.
8. Terminology concerns
Words like “store,” “storage,” and “supply” are seen as disrespectful in reference to the holy book. The Takht wants terms like “Sewa Sambhal,” “Prakash,” “Sukhasan,” and “Sachkhand” used instead, with Punjabi terms retained where no ‘respectful’ English equivalent exists.
9. Handling of sacrilege cases
The Takht has demanded that damaged Saroops not be taken to police stations or courts, but instead cremated respectfully at Gurdwara Sri Baoli Sahib following proper Sikh procedure.
10. Final assertion of authority
The Akal Takht reasserts that only it has authority to determine maryada (the panthic code of conduct) concerning Sri Guru Granth Sahib and the Sikh Sangat, rejecting any state legislative role in religious regulation.
11. Booking the dera or sect head
The Jathedar or head of the Akal Takht has asked both the government and Opposition to include a clause in the anti-sacrilege law. He said that if a follower of an ‘anti-Sikh dera’ (sect) commits sacrilege intentionally or as part of a conspiracy, a case would also be registered against the head of that dera.
