Former civil servants grouped under the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG) have strongly opposed the Punjab government’s proposed legislation, The Punjab Prevention of Offences Against Holy Scriptures Act, 2025. In a detailed submission to the Select Committee of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, the signatories described the Bill as “an assault on India’s democratic and constitutional foundations” and urged that it be withdrawn in its entirety.
The CCG, comprising 79 retired officers from the All India and Central Civil Services, recalled that similar attempts by the Punjab government in 2015 and 2018 to amend Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (now Section 299 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) had failed on grounds of unconstitutionality. In its 2018 open letter to the then Punjab Chief Minister, the group had opposed such amendments, citing their incompatibility with the freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution and their potential for misuse. “These objections apply with equal force to the proposal under consideration,” the former officials wrote.
The group argued that the draft Bill uses “loosely and broadly constructed definitions” of holy scriptures and offences, thereby abandoning essential safeguards of criminal jurisprudence. It criticised the introduction of strict liability into criminal law, warning that it could criminalise even accidental or bona fide acts involving religious texts. “Such an Act will effectively impose strict liability in criminal law, a concept alien to due process and incompatible with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution,” the letter said, adding that it risks chilling legitimate expression and reducing the rule of law to “an instrument of repression.”
CCG further stated that draconian blasphemy-style laws go against the grain of a secular polity and would only enlarge the role of religion in the state. The proposed Act, they warned, could reinforce sectarian tendencies and strengthen religious extremism. They pointed out that blasphemy laws worldwide have a record of being used against minorities and weaker sections, settling political or personal scores, and exacerbating communal tensions. In Punjab, where sects often derided by orthodoxy enjoy significant Dalit support, such a law could worsen social divisions.
The signatories also noted that existing provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita are adequate to address insults to religion, and that the severity of punishment is not the real deterrent—what is needed is certainty and swiftness of justice. They criticised the Bill’s drafting, observing that terms like “sacrilege” are left undefined, while the listing of only certain scriptures from major faiths was “unclear and inscrutable.” They emphasised that making sacrilege punishable with life imprisonment was “excessive and disproportionate,” especially since the Supreme Court had earlier held that even the four-year penalty under Section 295A IPC applied only to “aggravated” insults.
“The nation has already paid a heavy price for our past sins of pandering to extremist sentiments of various religions for short-term political ends,” the letter warned. “The need of the hour is for all responsible stakeholders to act to reduce the space provided to religious fundamentalists of all kind – not open up further space to them.”
The communication, signed by prominent former officials including Shivshankar Menon (former National Security Adviser), Julio Ribeiro (former Punjab DGP), Najeeb Jung (former Lt. Governor of Delhi), Harsh Mander, Aruna Roy, and Talmiz Ahmad (former Ambassador), concluded with a clear appeal: “At the current juncture, when the need to uphold our secular values has become more critical than ever before, we sincerely hope that the Legislature will stand by those values and urge the Hon’ble Committee to recommend the withdrawal of the Bill in its entirety.”
Comments