The sacrilege incidents of 2015 in Punjab—particularly the desecration of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji at Bargari and related police firing at Behbal Kalan and Kotkapura—sparked one of the biggest political, religious, and social upheavals in the state’s recent history. To address public anger and demands for justice, successive governments formed committees, SITs, and special panels. However, despite a decade of inquiries, political promises, and high-profile investigations, the final closure or conviction of the main culprits remains elusive. The “sacrilege committee” that was supposed to bring justice is now largely seen as stalled, politicized, or sidelined.
The first major committee was constituted under the previous government led by the Shiromani Akali Dal, which appointed a commission headed by Justice (Retd.) Zora Singh. But this commission was widely criticized for allegedly deflecting responsibility and not identifying who ordered the police firing. Victims’ families and Sikh organizations rejected its findings, leading to further turmoil. When the Congress government came to power in 2017 under Captain Amarinder Singh, they dissolved the earlier panel and set up a new inquiry led by Justice (Retd.) Ranjit Singh. His report indicted several senior police officers and raised serious questions about the then political leadership, but even after submission, the legal follow-up slowed down due to political constraints, legal hurdles, and alleged interference.
Later, Special Investigation Teams (SITs) were formed, re-formed, and even changed again when the Aam Aadmi Party took office in 2022. Each government claimed the previous SITs were flawed or compromised. This repeated disbanding and reconstituting of investigative bodies not only delayed the process but also created confusion over jurisdiction, evidence collection, and prosecution strategy. Every change forced investigators to start again—reviewing case files, re-summoning witnesses, and contesting previous legal decisions in court. Meanwhile, many of the accused officers approached courts and managed to secure stays, further slowing the momentum.
Another major reason the culprits have not been punished is the enormous political stakes attached to these cases. The sacrilege incidents became a powerful election issue in 2017, 2019, 2022, and continue to influence Punjab’s political narrative. Because senior police officials, high-level bureaucrats, and major political personalities were indirectly or directly named, the investigation became entangled in political power struggles. When governments changed, priorities shifted, and each ruling party focused more on blaming its predecessor than ensuring continuity of justice. This political tug-of-war has resulted in a fractured and inconsistent investigation that has repeatedly lost direction.
Legal complexities have also slowed progress. Many key aspects—such as proving conspiracy, establishing who ordered the firing, linking sacrilege incidents with alleged masterminds, and verifying forensic evidence—require strong, courtroom-ready material. Courts do not accept political statements; they require concrete proof. Delays in filing chargesheets, inconsistent witness testimonies, and procedural lapses weakened the cases at several stages. Each loophole allowed accused persons to obtain relief from the judiciary, which further prolonged the path to justice.
Finally, victims and Sikh bodies have repeatedly expressed frustration that despite years of protests, dharnas, and assurances from multiple chief ministers, the sacrilege committee today appears directionless. It exists more on paper than in action. Many believe the issue is being kept alive politically but not pursued seriously legally. Public pressure rises during elections and then fades, allowing the cases to be quietly slowed once again. This pattern has created a deep trust deficit between the people of Punjab and the state machinery.
In short, the culprits have not been punished because the sacrilege inquiry has suffered from political interference, repeated restructuring of committees and SITs, legal challenges, poor coordination, and a lack of continuous willpower from governments. Until there is a single, empowered, uninterrupted investigation backed by political neutrality—and until the government pursues prosecution with the same intensity outside election seasons as during them—the path to justice will remain delayed.