Thank you dear subscribers, we are overwhelmed with your response.Your Turn is a unique section from ThePrint featuring points of view from its subscribers. If you are a subscriber, have a point of view, please send it to us. If not, do subscribe here: https://theprint.in/subscribe/
The Akal Takht is supreme in Sikh affairs and must remain so. Its strength comes not from statutory powers but from the faith of the Sikh community. Its directions, therefore, must carry enough moral weight to be followed willingly.
Punjab’s anti-sacrilege law came from genuine pain. The Bargari sacrilege of 2015 and the police firing at Behbal Kalan left a wound that has not healed. Governments changed and inquiries followed, but justice remained elusive. The Badal-led Shiromani Akali Dal paid a heavy political price.
More immediate pressure came from Samana. Former soldier and farmer Gurjeet Singh Khalsa climbed a telecom tower in October 2024, demanding a stringent law. He stayed there for nearly 560 days and came down only after the law was notified in April 2026.
The Capt Amarinder Singh government’s 2018 multi-faith amendments proposing life imprisonment never received presidential assent. In July 2025, the Mann government introduced another multi-faith Bill and sent it to a Select Committee.
What was finally enacted, however, was different. The government amended the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Act, 2008, which specifically concerns Guru Granth Sahib. The Cabinet approved it on April 11 and the Assembly passed it two days later. The SGPC maintained that the final draft had not been shared with it or the Akal Takht. Consultation on the earlier Bill could not automatically count as consultation on this amendment.
Every party in the Assembly supported the law. It provided severe punishment, extending to life imprisonment for a conspiracy to commit sacrilege and disturb communal harmony. The government presented it as a historic achievement and launched a Shukrana Yatra.
The celebration soon turned into a confrontation.
The Akal Takht did not oppose stringent punishment. Its objections concerned provisions entering the domain of Sikh terminology, maryada and religious administration. The 2008 Act authorised the SGPC, or an approved body, to print and distribute birs of Guru Granth Sahib. It did not define a “custodian”, create an online register or impose duties upon every family or gurdwara possessing a bir.
The 2026 amendment replaced “bir” with “saroop”, created the category of “custodian” and required an electronic register containing identification and personal details. The Akal Takht feared that Sikh functionaries, gurdwara committees and families could be dragged into a penal framework. It objected to the State making rules touching the Sikh Rehat Maryada without consultation and sought protection for sewadars, accountability for organisers of sacrilege and fast-track courts.
These were not trivial objections. The State can define and punish a crime. But should a legislature decide Sikh terminology or regulate the relationship between Guru Granth Sahib, the Sangat and sewadars without the concurrence of Sikh institutions? This was about where religious authority ended and legislative power began.
Speaker Kultar Singh Sandhwan appeared before the Akal Takht on May 8. The government was given 15 days to remove the disputed provisions, but nothing changed. The issue also became entangled with a separate controversy over an alleged objectionable video involving Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann. The government wanted credit for acting on an emotive issue. The timing of the religious intervention, given the SGPC’s association with Akali politics, also raised questions.
On June 15, while deciding the video controversy, the Akal Takht declared Mann “Guru-Dokhi” and “Khalsa Panth Virodhi”. Sikhs were directed not to associate with him. Sikh ministers and MLAs from all parties were then summoned for June 29 to explain why they had supported the Act.
The scene that day was remarkable. Eighty-seven Sikh ministers and MLAs appeared before the five Sikh high priests. Some acknowledged that they had not read the complete Bill. Eventually, everyone raised a hand when asked whether the disputed provisions should be amended. The proceedings ended amid jaikaras. For that moment, the entire Sikh political class appeared to accept the supremacy of the Akal Takht.
The Jathedar gave the government one month to amend the law and asked that it be kept in abeyance. The deadline expired on July 29. That day, Dr Inderbir Singh Nijjar and district officials delivered a 26-page government response, not an amended draft. The Akal Takht rejected it and formed a five-member expert committee.
The Assembly met from August 3 to 10 and passed nine other Bills. This amendment was not among them, and the existing Act remains in force. To be fair, after rejecting the reply, the Akal Takht itself asked that no amendment be made until a wider Panthic consensus was reached. Its non-passage in August alone cannot be called defiance. The real failure was that the original deadline expired without agreement.
The direction asking Sikhs not to associate with Mann creates a more difficult situation. Sikh ministers remain in his Cabinet and Sikh legislators conducted Assembly business in his presence. On August 15, he is scheduled to hoist the national flag and take the ceremonial salute at Ferozepur. Sikh police personnel will simply be performing a constitutional duty. Yet it shows why a blanket boycott of a serving Chief Minister was never workable.
So, has the Akal Takht gained supremacy? June 29 certainly displayed its reach. But supremacy cannot be measured by summonses, raised hands or public spectacle. It depends on moral acceptance and consistent compliance. Such laws, such diktats and disregard only lead to social fundamentalism, moral policing and radicalisation in a society which already has such a history.
The government was wrong to legislate on sensitive Sikh matters without adequate consultation and then turn the law into a political celebration. Religious leadership must also recognise the line between moral authority and administrative command. When directions collide with constitutional duties, their non-observance can weaken the authority behind them.
No institution has emerged stronger. The government looks obstinate, Sikh politicians look inconsistent and the Akal Takht’s directions have been respectfully acknowledged but largely disregarded.
The Akal Takht’s supremacy will be protected not by declarations that cannot be implemented, but by restraint, fairness and moral authority so compelling that Sikhs follow it without being commanded.
These pieces are being published as they have been received – they have not been edited/fact-checked by ThePrint.