Punjab’s Palace of Assembly, Chandigarh. duncid, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons
The core problem with this legislation is that it removes the requirement of intent, allows wide police discretion and risks being misused to persecute religious minorities and suppress free expression. In India, a marked increase in Christian persecution has been documented over the past decade.
If enacted, the law would violate both India’s constitutional guarantees and established international human rights standards, while echoing the failings of blasphemy laws in other parts of the world.
The Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scriptures Act, 2025, currently under consideration by a state parliamentary committee, proposes to punish any act that offends or is perceived to insult holy scriptures. The punishment includes life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100,000 (roughly USD 1,200). A key concern is that the bill makes no distinction between intentional and accidental acts. It allows people to be punished with life imprisonment even if they did not mean to cause offense. This strict liability is extremely rare in criminal law and has almost no precedent in India’s legal system.
Concern over arbitrary application
The law lists scriptures from four religions: Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. However, it provides no clear standard for inclusion or exclusion, using the vague phrase “holy scriptures as regarded by respective religious denominations.” This ambiguity, coupled with selective listing, invites arbitrary application. In practice, officials or complainants could decide which texts deserve protection based on their own religious or political affiliations, allowing the law to be used selectively against disfavored groups.
The offences under the bill are classified as cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. This means the police can arrest the accused without a warrant, deny bail at the initial stages and prohibit any compromise between the complainant and the accused, even if both wish to resolve the matter privately.
The disfavored groups most vulnerable to being targeted under this law include Christians, Dalits, and Sikhs who do not belong to mainstream Sikh sects. The socio-religious context in Punjab is essential to understanding the likely impact on these communities.
Rise of Christianity in Punjab
Punjab witnessed a violent insurgency in the 1980s and early 1990s, followed by a brutal crackdown by security forces, marked allegedly by extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances. Though the militancy ended decades ago, its legacy remains visible in deep mistrust, polarization and a fragile peace. Punjab’s economy, heavily dependent on agriculture, is under strain due to falling farm incomes and limited industrial growth. Unemployment remains high, and the state is grappling with widespread drug addiction and alcoholism, particularly among its youth.
In such an environment, Christianity has grown in the state, especially among Dalits (formerly “untouchables”) who have converted in large numbers, in recent years. Alongside this, independent churches and house congregations have visibly increased. This has drawn resentment from some dominant religious groups.
Political party driving force behind the law
The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD), a center-right Sikh-focused political party in Punjab that has long positioned itself as a religious authority, is widely seen as the force behind the push for a sacrilege law. Although it is not currently in power, the SAD introduced a similar bill in 2016 during its tenure in government. It is the second-oldest political party in India and was previously an ally of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Its leaders have held meetings with some Christian leaders in the past, during which they expressed their opposition to Christian conversions, CSI has learnt.
The current bill must be viewed within this larger context of power struggles over religious identity, caste mobility and political dominance. It opens the door to misuse in these areas and also in ordinary disputes, where individuals may weaponize the law to settle personal scores.
A tool to curb religious conversions?
A student quoting from a religious text in a classroom debate could face arrest if a listener claims offense. A teacher placing a religious book on the floor out of convenience could be charged with sacrilege. A librarian who fails to notice termites damaging a religious book could be prosecuted for negligence under this law. A Dalit or Christian group referring to their own scripture, which others refuse to recognize, could face charges of insult or heresy. A journalist or academic who critiques verses from any listed scripture could be prosecuted without needing to prove malicious intent.
In effect, the proposed law could also serve as a tool to curb religious conversions. By criminalizing any perceived slight to religious texts, it creates a climate of fear around open discussion of religious beliefs. Converts, particularly from marginalized communities, may hesitate to speak about their new faith or share religious literature, fearing that such acts could be deemed as insults to their former religion. This indirect pressure could restrict the exercise of religious freedom and act as a deterrent to conversion.
Law inconsistent with human rights obligations
The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to equality before the law (Article 14), the right to life and personal liberty (Article 21), and the right to freedom of religion and expression (articles 25 and 19). Indian courts have repeatedly ruled that for an act to be criminal, especially in matters involving speech or belief, it must be intentional and cause real harm. In 1957, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code, which punishes deliberate acts meant to outrage religious feelings, to require clear and serious intent.
At the international level, the bill is inconsistent with India’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which India ratified in 1979. Article 18 guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to adopt or change one’s religion or belief. Article 19 protects the right to hold opinions without interference and to express those opinions freely.
In its General Comment No. 22, the United Nations Human Rights Committee affirmed that coercive measures, including criminal penalties, that restrict the exercise of religious freedom, such as adopting or sharing beliefs, are incompatible with Article 18. The Committee also stressed that protection of religious freedom does not imply that religions or beliefs themselves are shielded from public debate or critical discussion.
Further, the Rabat Plan of Action (2012), developed by the UN, provides a framework for assessing whether restrictions on religious speech are legitimate. It states that criminal restrictions must meet a high threshold, that they must be intentional, likely to incite violence and involve a clear risk of imminent harm. The Punjab bill fails on all three counts.
UN Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Expression have repeatedly urged states to repeal blasphemy laws and sacrilege statutes, stating they are “incompatible with international human rights law.” The proposed Punjab law moves sharply in the opposite direction.
Misuse of similar laws in other countries
Countries that retain blasphemy or sacrilege laws have consistently faced international criticism due to their misuse. In Pakistan, such laws have led to the imprisonment and even lynching of minorities. Human rights organizations have documented that blasphemy allegations in Pakistan are often rooted not in genuine religious offense but in efforts to marginalize minorities, personal disputes or land conflicts.
In Nigeria, students have been killed by mobs over alleged religious offenses. In Bangladesh, bloggers and secular writers have been assassinated after being accused of insulting religion. These countries have faced repeated calls from the UN and international rights organizations to reform or repeal such laws.
Democracies repealing blasphemy laws
By contrast, democracies are moving away from blasphemy laws. Ireland repealed its constitutional ban on blasphemy through a referendum in 2018, followed by legislative changes in 2019. New Zealand abolished its blasphemy offense in 2019; Canada repealed its blasphemous libel provision in 2018; Norway removed its blasphemy clause in 2015, and Denmark did so in 2017.
The global direction is clear: the protection of religious sentiment must not come at the cost of individual rights and civil liberties.
The Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scriptures Act, 2025, must be withdrawn in its entirety. It is not a law that can be salvaged through amendments. Its core structure is fundamentally at odds with constitutional principles, international human rights law and global democratic practice.
