A constitutional problem arises when religious authorities effectively dictate what laws to enact and in formulating State policy
Bharat Bhushan
On June 15, when the Akal Takht ordered all Sikh legislators across party lines and Punjab’s Sikh Cabinet ministers to physically appear before it, 78 MLAs and nine ministers complied. They were reprimanded for passing the controversial anti-sacrilege law, the Jagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar Amendment Act. They agreed to amend its provisions and language.
The ‘all Sikh’ formulation was a constitutional anomaly as it treated Sikh MLAs as answerable to Sikh constituents and to their religious organisation, rather than to their constituents and the Legislative Assembly. The Constitution does not recognise religious community as the basis of legislative accountability, nor does it provide a quasi-confessional model of representation. Yet no political party objected. Sikh MLAs of the Congress and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) also responded to the Akal Takht.
Governments in India have a long record of consulting religious organisations, attending religious ceremonies, seeking the support of religious leaders and modifying State policies after religious protests. Except for the communists, no party has a consistent record on religion’s insertion into politics and governance. The Congress responded to conservative Muslim clerics after the Shah Bano judgment. The BJP is known to be influenced by religious leaders and organisations (the VHP, the RSS) and accommodate their demands on sensitive issues. Many states have amended temple laws after consulting religious bodies, and several governments have avoided reforming personal laws because of community opposition.
While every Sikh MLA may voluntarily obey religious authority and religious organisations are free to express political opinions, a constitutional problem arises when religious authorities effectively dictate what laws to enact and in formulating State policy.
The Akal Takht has long inserted itself into governance and party affairs because the SAD originated as the political arm of Sikh institutions such as the SGPC. Akal Takht Jathedars have repeatedly summoned and punished senior Sikh politicians for actions considered opposed to the interests of the Sikh community.
Surjit Singh Barnala, who ordered Operation Black Thunder as Chief Minister of Punjab, was excommunicated for defying its summons. After leaving office, he gave a public apology and performed penance by standing tied to a pillar with a placard admitting guilt. The current chief minister, Bhagwant Mann of AAP, has also appeared before the Akal Takht over a controversial video described as ‘Guru Dokhi’ and ‘Panth Dokhi’. Former President Giani Zail Singh and former Union Home Minister Buta Singh were both declared ‘tankhaiya’ (guilty of religious misconduct) for their roles in Operation Blue Star.
The Akal Takht has also intervened repeatedly in the affairs of the SAD, disbanding or reuniting factions and, in 2024, it punished Sukhbir Singh Badal’s entire Cabinet long after they had left office.
The Akal Takht has no legal powers. It imposes no fines or imprisonment, but it orders religious punishments such as excommunication, public penance or sewa in a gurdwara. There is near-total compliance among Sikhs.
On this occasion the trigger for ordering elected representatives to appear before it was the unanimous passage of the anti-blasphemy law to prevent desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib. It prescribes 10 years to life imprisonment for sacrilege. However, the Akal Takht objected not to the severity of punishment but to provisions it believed gave government authority over religious matters and altered Sikh terminology by using ‘Saroop’ instead of ‘Bir’for the Guru Granth Sahib. The dispute was essentially over jurisdictional turf: the Akal Takht wants the government to leave religious management to Sikh institutions.
Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, now Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings with up to three years’ imprisonment. It applies to all religions, is religion-neutral and was not drafted to satisfy any religious authority. Yet the Mann government needed a separate law carrying life imprisonment because of the repeated desecration of the Guru Granth Sahib since 2015. No culprits have ever been identified despite judicial commissions, several SITs, and a CBI probe.
The SAD government suffered its worst electoral defeat over the issue, with the Congress campaigning primarily on punishing the culprits. Sacrilege remains a potent electoral issue. A similar anti-sacrilege law was passed in 2016 under the SAD government, that also provided for a life sentence. But it could not come into force as it did not receive presidential assent. Mann’s law may meet the same fate as the governor generally must refer to the President any Bill inconsistent with central criminal law. Presidential assent depends on the constitutional conflict and the legal workability and desirability of the amendments.
Given this uncertain fate, the new law reflects the looming Punjab Assembly election that is weighing on the AAP government. The loss of its two-term Delhi government in 2025 has put pressure on AAP to defend its last bastion; losing Punjab would be an existential threat. The party needs the Sikh votes it won in 2022 to prevail again in 2027. Defying the Akal Takht would hand the election to the SAD or the Congress. Mann had to prostrate himself and his MLAs before the Akal Takht, fearing that the narrative that destroyed the Akalis in 2015 could destroy AAP in 2027.
This is also why neither the Congress nor the BJP objected to the Akal Takht dictating legislative business — since Sikhs form the majority of Punjab’s voters. By summoning all Sikh MLAs and prescribing amendments with a deadline, the Akal Takht was asserting its authority as the pre-eminent Sikh religious institution. But it is open to interpretation whether this was only an assertion of moral authority over Sikh religious affairs or over state governance as well.
The episode suits everyone: the Akal Takht reaffirms its religious authority, AAP signals respect for Sikh institutions and positions itself as champion of Sikh interests, and the Opposition’s compliance is likewise driven by electoral self-preservation. The BJP-led Centre can represent itself as the arbiter of sacrilege law once the amended Bill is sent for presidential assent.
Everyone gains — but the Constitution may suffer. While the Indian Constitution does not prohibit governments from consulting religious organisations, it does not allow religious authorities to dictate legislative business as is happening in Punjab.
++++++++++++
After the truth-shower 