The recent debate surrounding the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026 has generated more apprehension than informed legal discussion. Matters concerning the Eternal Guru of the Sikhs naturally evoke deep emotions. Yet, faith and emotion are best served when guided by history, legal clarity and mutual respect rather than misunderstanding, suspicion or political slugfest. Religion should never become the horse upon which politicians ride to electoral success.
Why the Amendment Became Necessary
The background to this legislation cannot be ignored. For over two decades, Punjab has witnessed repeated incidents of sacrilege, damage to the Saroops of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji, and attempts by disruptive elements to disturb communal harmony. There were reports of unauthorised printing and publishing of Saroops containing misspellings and misprints, causing widespread concern and resentment. In response, the State took the position that existing laws were adequate to address other related issues; accordingly, the Jagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Act, the Principal Act of 2008, sought to introduce accountability in the printing, publishing and reverential Sambh Sambhaal of authorised Saroops at the printing houses. The tragic events of 2015, however, exposed the limitations of that framework and demonstrated the need for stronger legal safeguards. Efforts to enact a separate Scriptures Act for the same purpose failed to reach a logical conclusion owing to legal complexities.
Finally, the will of the Government and the wisdom of the Legislature prevailed, and the Amendment Act of 2026 to the Principal Act was passed and notified after receiving the approval of the Governor of Punjab. The principal amendments included replacing the word Bir with Saroop and substituting Section 5 with Section 5(1). These amendments mark a significant legislative shift.
The Amendment Act of 2026 also substantially strengthens the law by prescribing stricter punishment, making offences cognisable and non-bailable, and introducing a system of accountability through a Central Register and a Unique Identification (UID) for every authorised Saroop. It is this provision regarding the UID and the maintenance of digital records on the SGPC website that has become the principal subject of controversy, alongside certain concerns regarding terminology and penalties.
From Bir to Saroop
Before judging the amendment, it is important to distinguish between the historical expression Bir and the spiritually significant term Saroop. The Adi Granth, first installed at Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, in 1604 by Sri Guru Arjan Dev Ji and finalised by Sri Guru Gobind Singh Ji in 1705 at Damdama Sahib, remained the Holy Granth until 1708, when Guru Gobind Singh Ji bestowed upon it the Guruship of the Sikhs. From that moment, it ceased to be regarded merely as a compiled and bound volume of the Adi Granth and came to be revered as the Living Guru—the Eleventh and Eternal Guru of the Sikhs. The Legislature has therefore rightly adopted the expression Saroop in place of Bir when referring to the Guru. The continued use of the word Bir may nevertheless not be objectionable to many, for this ultimately remains a matter of faith rather than academic terminology.
UID: Accountability, Not Interference
The other major concern raised by the Sikh clergy and the SGPC relates to embedding a UID within the outer cover (Jild) of an authorised Saroop. The question is whether such a UID affects the sanctity or spirituality of the Saroop. In my respectful view, it does not. It is an accountability measure intended to improve security and traceability without altering a single word of Gurbani or affecting the spiritual status of Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
The Lesson from the Electric Bulb
History itself offers an instructive lesson from a remarkably similar crossroads. During 1896–97, before the SGPC came into existence, the proposal to introduce electric lighting and install bulbs at Sri Darbar Sahib, Amritsar, encountered strong opposition from sections of the Sikh clergy, who feared that such innovation might diminish the sanctity of the holy shrine and affect the Jot of the Guru. Many Sikhs also opposed electrification. Yet, following the Gurdwara Reform Movement and the establishment of the reform-oriented SGPC, permanent electrification was permitted in 1926 because it enhanced safety, visibility and convenience for the Sangat without compromising reverence. Today, no Sikh associates electric lighting with any dilution of faith. The lesson is enduring: technology introduced solely to protect, preserve and facilitate the Guru’s service should not automatically be regarded as an intrusion into religion. The SGPC itself has embraced digital transformation by broadcasting Gurbani through electronic and digital media, thereby spreading the Guru’s message across the world. The Sikh masses readily acknowledge the value of this initiative. The bulb did not diminish sanctity; it enhanced visibility. Likewise, a secure identification system strengthens accountability and the safety of the Saroop without affecting its Guruship. Indeed, every authorised Saroop already bears uniquely numbered Angs from 1 to 1430.
Can the SGPC Lead the Next Reform?
The present debate also presents an opportunity for the SGPC itself to lead by example. Rather than viewing digital identification as an external imposition, it may consider introducing, under its own religious supervision, a secure barcode or equivalent identification on every Ang of every authorised Saroop. Such a system would greatly strengthen traceability, deter damage and sacrilege, assist lawful investigation whenever offences occur, and preserve the authenticity of every Ang, while leaving the Gurbani and the sanctity of the Guru completely untouched. Such a reform has the potential to command broad acceptance and, if introduced under the religious supervision of the SGPC, may address many of the concerns presently being expressed.
The Importance of Language
At the same time, the Government must recognise that much of the present concern arises from the language employed in the legislation. Expressions such as custodian, storage, distribution and supply, though familiar in legal drafting, do not resonate with Sikh religious understanding. In matters of faith, language is not merely semantic; it reflects theology. Such expressions can appropriately be substituted in the Rules with terms rooted in Sikh tradition, including Sewak, Sewa Sambhaal, Sukh Asan, Arpan and Chalna/Yatra. Such refinement would remove much avoidable misunderstanding. The substitution of the word Saroop for Bir is itself a welcome step. If the Act and the Rules are notified in Gurmukhi, many of these concerns would substantially disappear.
Clarifying the Scope of the Law
Another misconception raised by the SGPC also deserves clarification. A fair reading of both the Principal Act and the Amendment Act, with particular reference to Section 5 and the first part of Section 5(1), shows that they are primarily concerned with accountability for authorised printing and publishing, and for the Saroops covered by the statute. Nothing in either enactment authorises the Government to supervise the Sikh Rehat Maryada, interfere with the religious authority of the SGPC or Sri Akal Takht Sahib, or regulate the religious duties of Granthis, Raagis, Paathis or Sewadars. These assurances deserve to be stated unambiguously in the Rules so that unnecessary fears are laid to rest. The Sikh masses also deserve to understand this reality so that apprehensions arising from politically motivated narratives may be dispelled.
Punishment Must Be Proportionate
The real concern lies in the punishment and penalties prescribed under Section 5(1) of the Amendment Act, 2026. This provision appears susceptible to misuse if adequate statutory safeguards are not incorporated. In matters of religion, there should be no coercive action for simple procedural violations where no offence of sacrilege is involved. The Government may therefore consider revisiting this aspect before the Legislative Assembly so that the provision can be appropriately refined and made bailable in such cases. Simultaneously, the SGPC may strengthen its own supervisory mechanism at authorised printing houses so that extraordinary legal action, however politically motivated, becomes unnecessary.
Dialogue Between Institutions
The responsibility for resolving the present impasse does not rest upon one institution alone. The SGPC and the Sikh clergy may view UID and digital record-keeping as measures intended to strengthen accountability rather than weaken faith. Equally, the Government should frame the Rules in close consultation with the SGPC, Sikh scholars and practising members of the community, issue authoritative Punjabi versions in Gurmukhi, and expressly reaffirm that matters of Rehat Maryada remain exclusively within the religious domain.
The Need for Dignified Public Discourse
The dignity of public discourse is equally important. Differences between constitutional authorities and religious institutions are neither unusual nor undesirable in a democratic society. However, when matters concerning the Guru arise, every public statement carries exceptional moral weight. The Acting Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib, while articulating the collective wisdom of the Takht, should continue to articulate its views in a manner reflecting the qualities of a Gurmukh described in Gurbani—truthful, humble, measured and guided by spiritual discernment. Such restraint will preserve the moral authority of Sri Akal Takht Sahib not only among the Sikh masses but also in the eyes of the wider public, while creating an atmosphere in which sincere dialogue can flourish.
A Shared Responsibility
Punjab has paid a heavy price whenever misunderstanding has replaced dialogue. The Government, the SGPC and Sri Akal Takht Sahib share a common responsibility to safeguard the security, sanctity and reverential Sambh Sambhaal of the Saroops while preserving public confidence and communal harmony.
The views expressed are offered in good faith, with the utmost reverence for the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji and Sri Akal Takht Sahib, the seat of Akal Purakh Waheguru. They are intended solely to encourage informed dialogue, mutual understanding and the peaceful resolution of issues concerning faith, law and public policy, without bias, prejudice or malice towards any institution or individual.