P&H High Court grills 'suspended' lawyer for challenging anti-sacrilege law passed by Punjab

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday declined to pass any order on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the recent amendments made by Punjab Assembly to the anti-sacrilege law concerning acts against the Guru Granth Sahib [Simranjeet Singh v State of Punjab and Others]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said it would first examine the maintainability of petition since the petitioner, Simranjeet Singh had failed to disclose facts about the criminal cases registered against him in the past.

The Court remarked that there was an attempt to suppress material facts. It also noted that Singh's Bar license was suspended due to doubts over authenticity of his law degree.

"This Court will have to seriously undertake the exercise as to whether the petition can be entertained or not or dismissed in limine," the Bench said.

Advocate General Maninderjit Singh Bedi, appearing for the State of Punjab, submitted that Bar license of the petitioner remains suspended as the genuineness of his academic degree was under scrutiny.

Bedi said the State Bar Council had withdrawn the enrolment issued to him earlier. He questioned how the petitioner could claim to be a law graduate in the pleadings.

"These are the antecedents and credentials of the petitioner," Bedi added.

The counsel appearing for the petitioner responded that the case is of public importance.

However, the Court said it has to first examine antecedents of a public interest litigant. It questioned why he had not disclosed the three FIRs registered against him in the past.

"When were they quashed, in which proceeding? Nothing has been disclosed," the Court said.

The counsel responded that he will mention these facts on an affidavit. However, Punjab AG opposed the request.

The petitioner's counsel responded that there are no FIRs against him at present and that his degree has not been held invalid so far. He added that the license was revoked as he had a criminal case related to his marriage.

However, the Court said that his degree itself was under question. The Court said it cannot consider the challenge to anti-sacrilege law before first looking into the antecedents of the petitioner.

Punjab AG also apprised the Court that the petitioner has been declared a habitual complainant by the Vigilance Bureau. He, thus, sought dismissal of the cost with heavy costs.

The Court then adjourned the case to next week to examine the material produced by Punjab government. It asked the State to share the material with the petitioner to enable him respond to the allegations.

Punjab State Assembly recently passed the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Bill, 2026. Since then it has received the Governor's assent and become a law. The amendments were made to a law originally passed in 2008.

The Act now provides for a minimum imprisonment of seven years and a maximum of 20 years for any act of sacrilege of the saroops of the Guru Granth Sahib. It also provides for imposition of a fine ranging from ₹2 lakh to ₹10 lakh for desecration.

Significantly, it provides for life imprisonment in case of sacrileges committed with intention to disrupt communal harmony in the State.

"Any person who in criminal conspiracy commits an offence of sacrilege of the Saroop(s) of Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib under this Act with the intention to disrupt peace or communal harmony shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees but which may extend to twenty-five lakh rupees," Section 5(3) of the Act states.

The petitioner Simranjeet Singh, a resident of Jalandhar, has challenged the law on the ground that since its provisions are inconsistent with provisions of existing laws including the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), it requires Presidential assent.

The plea also states that the law violates Article 14 as it excludes the scriptures of other religions. It also contends that the definition of sacrilege under the Act is vague.

Today, counsel representing the petitioner submitted that subject matter of the Act now falls under the concurrent list of the Constitution and thus it required President's assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution.

He also referred to various provisions of BNS that criminalise acts targeting any religion or religious beliefs.

"With an idea to make a very graver offence, the bill was introduced and passed. Governor has given assent [to the bill] and it has also been notified," the counsel submitted.

The Court asked whether the Punjab legislature had no jurisdiction to pass the Act. The counsel responded that such bill, even if passed, could not have become a law without assent of the President.

Though the Court was inclined to entertain the plea after hearing arguments on merits, it adjourned the matter after Punjab government questioned the antecedents of the petitioner.

Senior Advocate Mandeep Singh Sachdev with Advocates Rahul Sharma and Meher Sachdev appeared for the petitioner.