A petition has been filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking quashing of the “Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib Satkar (Amendment) Act, 2026” (Punjab Act No. 7 of 2026). The matter is yet to be taken up for hearing. The legislation provides for stringent penalties, including life imprisonment, for sacrilege.The petition, filed in person by Jalandhar resident Simranjeet Singh (43), challenges the constitutional validity of the amendment Act. The legislation was passed by the State Legislature, received the Governor’s assent on April 17, 2026, and was notified in the Official Gazette on April 20, 2026.Setting out the grounds of challenge, the petitioner has contended that the impugned Act suffers from lack of Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. It has been submitted that the Act creates criminal penalties, including life imprisonment under Section 5(3), which falls within the Concurrent List.The plea states that as these provisions are inconsistent with the existing Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Presidential assent was required, while the Gazette reflects that only the Governor’s assent was obtained.The petition has further raised the issue of violation of Article 14 and the principle of secularism. It has been contended that the Act provides an exclusive high-penalty framework solely for the saroops of Jaagat Jot Sri Guru Granth Sahib, and by excluding other religious scriptures, fails the test of equality before law.On sentencing, the petitioner has questioned Section 5(3), submitting that it mandates life imprisonment for conspiracy to commit sacrilege with intent to disrupt peace. The plea states that equating such an offence with punishment for murder is disproportionate and amounts to “manifest arbitrariness” under Article 14.The petitioner has also challenged the definition of sacrilege under Section 2(bb), stating that it includes acts by “words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations or through electronic means”. The plea contends that such a definition is vague, fails the standard of reasonable restriction, and creates a chilling effect on freedom of speech under Article 19.A copy of the impugned Act has been placed on record as an annexure along with the petition.