Akal Takht Objects to Punjab’s Anti-Sacrilege Law: A Breakdown of 11 Key Issues
Sri Akal Takht Sahib, the highest temporal authority of the Sikhs, has raised several objections to the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, also known as Punjab’s anti-sacrilege law. The Takht argues that the law 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, which was passed without proper consultation with the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) or other panthic bodies. In response, the Takht declared Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann as 'panth virodhi' (opposed to the Sikh community) and issued an edict calling for his boycott over an objectionable video.
Here is a point-wise breakdown of the objections:
1. Replacement of 'Bir/Birs' with 'Saroop/Saroops'
The Akal Takht objected to the removal of the traditional term 'Bir,' which has been used in Sikh Rehat Maryada for centuries to refer to a physical copy of the Guru Granth Sahib, which is regarded as a living Guru. The Takht argues that terminology related to the holy book must be decided by the Khalsa Panth, not the government. It demands that 'Bir/Birs' be retained, with 'Saroop/Saroops' used alongside if needed, rather than as a replacement.
2. Definition of 'Custodian'
The new law defines custodians (devotees, committees, Granthis, Sewadars) with the intent of fixing sacrilege-related responsibility on caretakers. The Takht argues that no human can be the 'custodian' of the Guru, and decisions about who holds a Saroop are internal Sikh matters already overseen by Akal Takht.
3. Central Register with Unique Identification Numbers (UIN)
The provision for assigning unique numbers to each copy of the holy book for a central register has been rejected by the Takht as tampering with sanctity. It insists that only the representative body of the Sikh community, not the 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 uploading custodian and location records on the SGPC website, citing privacy risks and potential misuse. It referenced the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, warning that digitised records could enable similar targeting globally, since Saroops are distributed worldwide.
5. Duties of Custodians
The law specifies duties such as safe custody and protection of the holy book. The Takht termed this government overreach into internal Sikh religious administration and demanded its complete removal.
6. Punishment Clause
The proposed five-year imprisonment and Rs 10 lakh fine for sacrilege have been opposed over concerns that it could unfairly target Sewadars, Granthis, and Gurdwara committees, and be misused for personal vendettas and false cases.
7. Rule-Making Power
A broader objection is that the government retains unilateral rule-making authority without consulting SGPC or Akal Takht Sahib. The Takht demands mandatory consultation before any rules are framed.
The developments have also prompted criticism of the Aam Aadmi Party government from the Punjab BJP and the Shiromani Akali Dal. The controversy continues as the Sikh community awaits further resolution through dialogue.
