Just about a week after a petition was filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court for quashing the newly amended anti-sacrilege law, the High Court on Wednesday made clear its intent to first examine the maintainability of the petition filed in public interest after the State raised objections to the petitioner’s locus and his background.
“This court will have to seriously undertake the exercise as to whether the petition can be entertained or not, or dismissed in limine (at the threshold),” the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry asserted. The case will now come up for further hearing on May 8.
Advertisement
As the matter came up for preliminary hearing before the Bench, State Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi submitted that the petitioner’s Bar license remained suspended as the genuineness of his academic degree was under scrutiny.
Advertisement
Seeking the dismissal of the petition, Bedi added that the petitioner had been declared a habitual complainant and his name figured in the internal list of such persons prepared by the vigilance bureau. “These are the antecedents and credentials of the petitioner,” Bedi submitted.
It was, however, contended on the petitioner’s behalf that the matter raised issues of public importance. The Bench was also told that the petitioner relevant facts would be placed before the Bench in an affidavit. Besides this, no FIR was pending against him and his academic degree had not been declared invalid.
The petitioner was seeking directions for quashing the “Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026” — a legislation providing for stringent penalties, including life imprisonment, for sacrilege. Challenging the constitutional validity of the amendment Act, Jalandhar resident Simranjeet Singh had contended that the legislation was passed by the State Legislature, received the Governor’s assent on April 17, and was notified in the Official Gazette on April 20.
Setting out the grounds of challenge, the petitioner contended that the impugned Act suffered from lack of Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. He submitted that the Act created criminal penalties, including life imprisonment under Section 5(3), which fell within the Concurrent List. “As these penalties are inconsistent with the existing Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Act required the Assent of the President of India under Article 254(2) to be valid. The Gazette confirms that only the Governor’s assent was obtained, rendering the entire Act procedurally void and unconstitutional,” he added.
The petition further raised the issue of violation of Article 14 and the principle of secularism. It was contended that the Act provided an exclusive high-penalty framework solely for the saroops of Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib. It failed the test of equality before law by excluding other religious scriptures.
“By excluding other religious scriptures, the State has failed the test of ‘Equality before Law’ and violated the Basic Structure of the Constitution— Secularism”.
On sentencing, the petitioner questioned Section 5(3), submitting that it mandated life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit sacrilege with intent to disrupt peace. The plea stated that equating such an offence with punishment for murder was disproportionate and amounted to “manifest arbitrariness” under Article 14. “Equating a non-violent offence against religious sentiments with the punishment for Murder is disproportionate and “manifestly arbitrary” under Article 14,” the petitioner added.
He also challenged the definition of sacrilege under Section 2(bb), stating that it includes acts by “words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means”. “This vagueness fails the standard of “Reasonable Restriction” and creates a chilling effect on the Freedom of Speech (Article 19),” it was added