Academicians and Sikh scholars have expressed strong concern over what they describe as direct state intervention in Sikh religious matters, following the Punjab Vidhan Sabha’s passage of amendments to the Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Act, 2008, earlier this week.They are of the view that a politically motivated move would give rise to more trouble in future, rather than assuage the feelings of Sikhs hurt by the sacrilege incidents.SGPC member Kiranjot Kaur said that neither the government nor the law has any authority to interpret religious doctrine. “In its very first line, the AAP government replaced the word ‘Bir’ used in the 2008 Act with ‘Saroop’ in the 2026 amendment. ‘Bir’ refers to a bound compilation, such as the Damdami Bir or Kartarpuri Bir, while ‘Saroop’ denotes a physical form, akin to an idol. In Sikhism, the ‘Shabd’ mentioned in the Guru Granth Sahib is the Guru. The ‘custodian’ who owns a Bir has traditionally been held responsible in cases of desecration. Does this now mean the police will check and decide whether Sikh ‘Maryada’ is being followed? How will misuse be prevented? A deeply personal bond between a devout Sikh and the Guru Granth Sahib will be regulated by law, which is unacceptable,” she said.She further added that placing the printing, storage and distribution of the Guru Granth Sahib under government supervision is unacceptable to her and many devout Sikhs.Jagrup Singh Sekhon, former professor at Guru Nanak Dev University, also criticised the idea of the state and law policing blasphemy, noting that enforcing such legislation would remain a challenge. He said the highly emotive issue of sacrilege often draws political attention, with parties attempting to outdo each other in projecting themselves as protectors of the Panth and Sikhism.“The Congress, under Capt Amarinder Singh, came to power in 2017 promising action against those responsible for the 2015 sacrilege incidents and subsequent police firing on protesters. In 2022, the Aam Aadmi Party secured a sweeping victory with similar assurances regarding the Bargari sacrilege case and the Behbal Kalan and Kotkapura firing incidents. However, both failed to deliver justice in desecration cases,” he said.Tarlochan Singh, former Chairman of the National Minorities Commission, said, “In Sikhism, ‘Shabd’ is the Guru, and the word of God cannot come under the scrutiny of law or government. Neither ritualism nor legislation has a role in the sphere of divinity in Sikhism, which seeks to liberate humanity from all forms of bondage.”He described the move as driven by vote-bank politics. “Had successive governments ensured punishment for those responsible in the first sacrilege case in 2015, the issue would not have escalated to such proportions. The failure to punish culprits has encouraged the continuation of such crimes,” he said.Amarjit Singh, former director of the Centre for Studies in Sri Guru Granth Sahib at Guru Nanak Dev University, said that laws addressing such offences already exist. “The government does not need to introduce new legislation but must demonstrate the will to punish offenders, many of whom have escaped accountability after committing sacrilege,” he said. He added that Gurmat philosophy encourages adherence to faith without ritualism.