High Court Questions Maintainability Of PIL Challenging Punjab's Anti-Sacrilege Law; Raps Petitioner For Suppressing Antecedents

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday declined to pass any immediate order on a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the “Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026”.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry observed that it would first examine the maintainability of the PIL in light of the petitioner's antecedents and alleged suppression of material facts.

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

Considering the same, the bench questioned why he had not disclosed the three FIRs registered against him.

AG Maninderjit Singh Bedi submitted that the petitioner has been declared a habitual complainant by the Vigilance Bureau. He, thus, sought dismissal of the cost with heavy costs.

The case was accordingly adjourned 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.

Notably, in an earlier PIL, the same petitioner had been pulled up by the High Court for suppressing the fact that his licence to practice law had been suspended by the Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana.

Observing that the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands, the Division Bench had dismissed the plea with costs of ₹15,000 to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority Disaster Relief Fund.

The Court had also recorded that Singh's challenge to his suspension had earlier been dismissed for want of prosecution.

The PIL was filed by Simranjeet Singh, who described himself as a law graduate. It challenged the 2026 amendment to the anti-sacrilege law relating to acts against the Guru Granth Sahib, Among other grounds it was contended that the legislation introduces stringent penalties, including life imprisonment, without obtaining Presidential assent as required under Article 254(2) of the Constitution, given its alleged inconsistency with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

The petition submitted that the Act creates a special penal framework exclusively for one religious scripture, thereby violating the principle of equality before law and the basic structure doctrine of secularism.

Title: Simranjeet Singh v State of Punjab and Others