Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann’s “Shukrana Yatra”, intended to demonstrate thanksgiving for the passage of the anti-sacrilege Act, the Jaagat Jyot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026, is fast snowballing into a confrontation between the government and the Akali Dal-led SGPC as well as the highest temporal body in Sikh religious affairs, the Akal Takht.
Mann’s travels across Punjab — he started from Takht Sri Kesgarh Sahib in Anandpur Sahib earlier this week and ended at Fatehgarh Sahib— are also being showcased as a political show of strength in the wake of the defection of seven AAP Rajya Sabha MPs to the BJP.
Armed with the passage of the anti-sacrilege Act, 2026, Mann has vociferously criticised the Akali Dal for not doing anything to punish the people behind the “beadbi” or “sacrilege” incidents in 2015, which was followed by a firing in which two people were killed. The Akali Dal was in power in alliance with the BJP at the time.
The CM’s comments have triggered reactions not just from the Akali Dal and the SGPC, which it influences, but even from the Akal Takht and its officiating Jathedar, Giani Kuldeep Singh Gargaj.
Gargaj has come out in opposition to the Act, saying it was carried out without consultation of key Sikh institutions like the SGPC and the Akal Takht. Speaking to the press on Friday, Gargaj has demanded the Act be placed in abeyance until a panel of Sikh legal experts and former judges review it and build consensus in keeping with the Sikh “rehat maryada”.
The Jathedar has shot off a15-day ultimatum, saying the Akal Takht will take “strict action” if the Act is not put on hold. Assembly speaker Kultar Singh Sandhwan was summoned to the Akal Takht two days ago and reprimanded.
Gargaj has also criticised the CM’s celebratory “Shukrana Yatra” as an act of gaining political mileage, even terming it an “ahankar yatra”, or “prideful yatra” which challenged Sikh institutions.
The CM has categorically ruled out a rollback, saying the Act has followed due constitutional process and was applicable after receiving consent by Punjab Governor Gulab Chand Kataria.
At its core, the dispute is not over intent. Both sides seek to uphold the sanctity of the Guru Granth Sahib. The disagreement lies in a more fundamental question: who has the authority to regulate matters of faith—the state or the Panth? This is the core issue that lies at the heart of Punjab’s political and religious sphere. It always has, since the Sixth Guru, Hargobind, began the foundational Sikh doctrine which sought to balance temporal power (Miri) with spiritual authority (Piri).
The new Act, Mann insists, prescribes the most stringent attempt to tackle incidents of sacrilege. Passed unanimously by the Vidhan Sabha, it prescribes harsh penalties—ranging from seven years imprisonment to life (till death) and substantial fines.
The Akal Takht’s demand is not outright repeal but to amend certain provisions. Jathedar Gargaj has stated that while the Panth does not oppose “strict punishment for sacrilege”, it does not approve of “state intrusion into religious jurisdiction”.
Besides the absence of consultation with key Sikh institutions, including the SGPC and the Takht itself, before passing the Act, the Jathedar has said that several of the Act’s provisions—particularly those relating to custody, record-keeping, and regulation of Sri Guru Granth Sahib saroops, or holy books — amount to legislating religious practice, which could affect the deep relationship of devotion between the devotee and the principles of ‘Sikhi’.
Gargaj has also raised concerns that some clauses could undermine Sikh institutional autonomy. He says the Act has wrongly classified religious functionaries such as granthis, pathis and gurdwara committee as liable under criminal law in the event of sacrilege incidents.
The Jathedar’s question—how can the CM challenge the authority of the Akal Takht —and the government’s counter-assertion of constitutional supremacy capture the essence of the moment.
Guru Nanak Dev University’s former professor of political science, Dr Kuldip Singh, viewed that an amicable resolution to the contention between the two sides was unlikely.
“Both sides are vying for political mileage, but it will hardly help either. The reason is that the people’s resentment was against the 2015 sacrilege incidents of Bargarhi and Kotkapura, for which the justice has not been delivered till date. The new anti-sacrilege law cannot be applied in retrospect. On the other side, the Akalis are on the backfoot as those incidents had occurred under their regime, when the party was in alliance with the BJP,” he said.
