After five years of protests, demonstrations and judicial scrutiny, the registration of an FIR under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code in the case of 328 missing saroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib marks a significant, if belated, step towards accountability. The 7 December 2025 demonstration in Amritsar, led by Sikh Sadbhavana Dal’s Baldev Singh Wadala and other farm leaders, culminated in what grassroots Sikh organisations had demanded since 2020: a criminal investigation into what the SGPC’s own probe committee termed gross misappropriation and embezzlement.
The Punjab Government’s decision to register this FIR deserves measured support—not as political theatre, but as an overdue acknowledgement that administrative failures involving sacred religious texts cannot be addressed through internal disciplinary measures alone when they involve cognizable offenses. However, this support must come with clear expectations: the investigation must be free, fair, expeditious, and conclude with a chargesheet within the statutorily permitted timeframe of 90 to 180 days. Equally important, it must not devolve into a witch-hunt characterised by indiscriminate arrests designed to settle political scores.
What the SGPC’s Own Inquiry Revealed
Let us be unambiguous about the facts. This is not a case built on speculation or political vendetta. The three-member probe committee headed by Advocate Ishar Singh of the Telangana High Court, constituted by the Akal Takht itself, produced a 1,100-page report documenting systemic irregularities in the SGPC publication department. The inquiry, which scrutinised records from 2013–14 and 2014–15, found that 328 saroops had been issued without proper documentation—a clear prima facie case of embezzlement and misappropriation of funds, above and beyond the breach of the maryada.
The committee’s findings were damning: officials had circumvented the established procedure for issuing saroops, which requires written applications, inspections and ceremonial installations that typically take months. Instead, VIPs and NRIs allegedly obtained saroops directly through employees, often with references from top political leaders, pocketing the ‘bheta’ (monetary offerings) meant for the institution. The report named 16 SGPC employees, including then Chief Secretary Dr Roop Singh, holding them accountable for what it termed “very poorly” maintained records.
This was the SGPC’s own inquiry, ordered by the Akal Takht, conducted by respected legal professionals who were practising Sikhs. The evidence of financial misconduct was sufficiently grave that Dr Roop Singh resigned on moral grounds on 27 August 2020. When an institution’s own probe reveals such malfeasance, dismissing subsequent criminal proceedings as “interference” becomes intellectually dishonest, if not entirely indefensible.
SGPC’s Lukewarm Response: Brushing It Under the Carpet
The SGPC’s handling of its own findings exposed a troubling pattern of institutional self-protection trumping accountability. On 27 August 2020, the executive committee initially announced it would register an FIR against the erring employees. Within ten days, SGPC President Gobind Singh Longowal reversed this decision, declaring that no FIR would be lodged to prevent “outside agencies” from interfering in SGPC affairs.
This reversal was not principled autonomy—it was institutional evasion. The SGPC opted for internal disciplinary action: some employees were dismissed or suspended under service rules, and Longowal tendered a public apology at the Golden Temple after the Akal Takht punished the executive for negligence. While these gestures addressed religious sentiment, they failed to address the criminal dimensions of financial misappropriation.
Embezzlement of funds is a cognizable offense. When SGPC employees and ex-employees themselves approached the police seeking action, it became clear that internal measures were insufficient. The question the SGPC must answer is stark: if your own inquiry reveals systematic financial fraud involving sacred texts, why would you oppose a criminal investigation? What institutional interests override the pursuit of justice?
The Unanswered Question: What Happened to the Saroops?
The SGPC’s reluctance to pursue criminal proceedings raises a more disturbing question that its 2020 probe could not fully answer: what became of these 328 saroops? Were they sold? Were they improperly disposed of? Did any become part of the wave of sacrilege incidents that convulsed Punjab, culminating in the Bargari desecration of October 2015 that sparked mass outrage and protests across the state?
The probe revealed that 80 additional saroops were destroyed in a 2016 fire, an incident allegedly downplayed by the SGPC. The probe committee noted that poorly maintained records made it a “Herculean task” to determine how many more saroops might be missing since 2015. This opacity is precisely why a thorough police investigation with forensic scrutiny of financial transactions and supply chains is essential.
The sacrilege incidents at Bargari and elsewhere shook Punjab to its core. The subsequent police firing at Behbal Kalan on 14 October 2015, which killed two protestors, and the firing at Kotkapura remain open wounds in Punjab’s collective memory. If the missing saroops are in any way connected to that broader pattern of sacrilege, the Sikh community deserves to know. If they are not, a transparent investigation will establish that fact conclusively.
The Path Forward: Investigation Without Persecution
The registration of this FIR must mark the beginning of a process, not its end. The investigation must be conducted with professionalism, competence and respect for due process. Several principles should guide this inquiry:
First, time-bound completion. The Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that investigations be completed expeditiously. A chargesheet must be filed within 90 days for offences punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment, extendable to 180 days with judicial permission. Section 295-A carries a maximum sentence of three years, making the 90-day deadline applicable. The Punjab Police must meet this deadline.
Second, evidence-based investigation. The SGPC’s 1,100-page report provides a comprehensive evidentiary foundation. Investigators should focus on documentary evidence, financial records and witness statements rather than coercive interrogation tactics. The 16 named officials deserve fair investigation, not predetermined guilt.
Third, no witch-hunts or indiscriminate arrests. Naming Dr Roop Singh and others in the FIR does not justify harassment or arbitrary detention. Those under investigation should be questioned respectfully, with access to legal representation, and arrested only if the evidence genuinely warrants custodial interrogation. Needless to add, the entire process must be conducted in due deference to religious maryada. The Punjab Police’s recent history with high-profile religious cases makes restraint imperative.
Fourth, institutional accountability beyond individuals. While individuals must answer for their actions, the investigation must examine systemic failures. How did the SGPC’s procurement and documentation systems allow such extensive irregularities? What political pressures enabled VIPs to circumvent procedures? Were there payments to political parties or leaders?
Cooperation Over Confrontation
The SGPC and Shiromani Akali Dal’s instinct will be to frame this FIR as governmental overreach or AAP’s political vendetta. Such framing is both predictable and counterproductive. The Akal Takht ordered the original inquiry. Sikh organisations demanded criminal proceedings. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has monitored the case and issued contempt notices for inadequate action.
Rather than positioning this as governmental interference in Sikh affairs, the SGPC should recognise an opportunity to cleanse itself of systemic corruption that has eroded its credibility. Cooperation with the investigation at every level—providing documents, facilitating interviews, transparently sharing information—would demonstrate that the institution values accountability over self-preservation.
The guilty, if established through due process, must be punished. The innocent must be exonerated. The institution must be reformed. These outcomes require investigation, not obstruction.
Unfinished Business: Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan Police Firings
As this investigation proceeds, Punjab cannot forget that the sacrilege crisis of 2015 remains unresolved. The police firing cases at Kotkapura and Behbal Kalan, which took innocent lives, must be brought to their logical conclusion. Justice for the missing saroops and justice for those killed by police bullets are not separate demands—they are intertwined threads of accountability that Punjab’s political and religious leadership have evaded for too long.
The current government must demonstrate that this FIR is not an instance of selective justice or weaponising the legal process, but part of a broader commitment to resolving all pending sacrilege-related cases. Previous governments buried these files under the weight of political expediency. This government has an opportunity to break that pattern, even as the state heads into the Vidhan Sabha elections in February 2027.
In Summary
The registration of an FIR in the missing saroops case is neither a political attack on Sikh institutions nor governmental interference in religious affairs. It is the consequence of documented evidence of financial misappropriation involving sacred texts, evidence produced by the SGPC’s own inquiry. The government’s action deserves support insofar as it pursues justice through proper legal channels, within stipulated timeframes and without compromising due process.
The current government must demonstrate that this FIR is not an instance of selective justice or weaponising the legal process, but part of a broader commitment to resolving all pending sacrilege-related cases. Previous governments buried these files under the weight of political expediency. This government has an opportunity to break that pattern, even as the state heads into the Vidhan Sabha elections in February 2027. In this context, it bears emphasis that the DGP, Punjab, is widely regarded as a thoroughly professional police officer. It is expected of him to ensure that the investigation is entrusted to officers with a proven track record, professional competence and unimpeachable integrity. If a Special Investigation Team (SIT) is constituted, it should be ensured that its composition is not altered arbitrarily, and that any change is made only for compelling and clearly defensible reasons.
How this investigation is conducted, and how the matter is prosecuted before the judicial courts, will be closely followed not only by Sikhs within India and across the diaspora, but also by the broader civil society and the legal fraternity. Any aberration or perceived bias in this process cannot but cast a long shadow of doubt on the credentials of the entire Punjab Police as a neutral and professional force—a force that has, in the past, weathered many a storm, including the wave of terrorism in the 1980s and early 1990s. That hard-earned credibility must not be squandered.
The Sikh community’s demand for accountability is legitimate. The SGPC’s desire for institutional autonomy is understandable. These principles need not conflict if both sides recognise that genuine autonomy requires genuine accountability. An institution that shields wrongdoers loses moral authority; a government that weaponises investigations loses public trust.
Let this investigation be fair, fast and forensic. Let it follow evidence, not political expediency. Let it punish the guilty and exonerate the innocent. And let it finally provide answers to a question that has haunted Punjab’s Sikh community for five years: what happened to the missing saroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib, and who is responsible? The fitness of things demands nothing less than the full truth, pursued through the full majesty of law, with due regard to the maryada of Sri Guru Granth Sahib.