All eyes are on the Akal Takht in Amritsar today as Punjab's Sikh MLAs, Cabinet ministers and Vidhan Sabha Speaker appear to explain their position on the disputed anti-sacrilege law, concerning the sanctity of Guru Granth Sahib.
Ahead of the proceedings, Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann and AAP national convener Arvind Kejriwal met party leaders in Amritsar. Mann subsequently announced that the summoned representatives of his party would appear and present the government's position.
It's pertinent to mention that while Sikh MLAs and ministers have been asked to appear personally before the Secretariat of Akal Takht, non-Sikh legislators have been directed to submit their written clarifications on the matter.
The development comes amid a separate controversy over an objectionable video allegedly linked to CM Mann, an allegation he denies. Opposition parties have demanded his resignation, while the Shiromani Gurdwara Parbhandhak Committee (SGPC) has sought police action over aspects of the controversy.
These developments provide the immediate context, but the larger issue goes beyond the political confrontation of the moment.
What is Akal Takht? Why can it summon a Sikh, including a ruler, president, chief minister or legislator? How is a decision reached, and what does religious punishment signify?
The Throne Of The Timeless One
Akal Takht Sahib was established by the sixth Sikh Guru, Guru Hargobind Sahib, in Amritsar in 1609. Located within the Harmandir Sahib complex, widely known as the Golden Temple, "Akal Takht" means the Throne of the Timeless One.
Its establishment gave institutional expression to the Sikh principle of Miri-Piri. Guru Hargobind Sahib wore two swords: Piri represented spiritual authority, while Miri symbolised temporal responsibility.
The principle conveyed that faith could not remain indifferent to injustice, oppression or threats to collective dignity.
Harmandir Sahib represents devotion, humility and spiritual reflection, while Akal Takht represents justice, courage and collective responsibility. Together, they embody the balance between spiritual guidance and temporal duty.
Akal Takht consequently came to be regarded as the supreme temporal seat of Sikh authority and a forum for considering serious matters affecting Sikh conduct, institutions and the wider interests of the Panth.
Why Does It Summon Someone?
A summons issued from Akal Takht is not the same as one issued by a constitutional court. It is essentially a call for religious and moral accountability.
When a serious complaint arises concerning Sikh principles, the Sikh Rehat Maryada or Sikh Code of Conduct, the actions of an individual or an issue affecting the wider Panth, the Sikh concerned may be asked to submit a written clarification or appear personally.
The person may be a political leader, religious functionary, institutional representative or an ordinary Sikh.
A summons should not automatically be interpreted as a declaration of guilt. Ideally, it provides an opportunity to explain one's conduct, answer the allegations and present relevant facts before a collective decision is reached.
The moral strength of such proceedings depends upon fairness, consistency, credible material and freedom from political pressure.
Who Takes The Decision?
Serious issues are traditionally considered collectively by the Five Singh Sahibans, the senior Sikh religious functionaries representing the five Takhts.
They examine the complaint, the available information, the explanation submitted by the individual and the applicable Sikh principles before reaching a decision.
Depending upon its nature, a decision may be described as an order, direction, message, gurmata or hukamnama. These expressions are not necessarily interchangeable.
Political and media discourse often describes every announcement from Akal Takht as a hukamnama. Technically, that may not always be correct. Religious terminology must be used carefully because each term carries a distinct institutional significance.
What Are Tankhaiya And Tankhah?
A Sikh found responsible for violating religious discipline may be declared a tankhaiya and assigned tankhah, or religious atonement. It is neither a criminal sentence nor a financial penalty.
Tankhah may include cleaning devotees' shoes, washing utensils, serving in the langar, reciting or listening to Gurbani, and participating in ardas.
Its purpose is not humiliation or revenge, but humility, introspection, correction and reconciliation. Through sewa, even a powerful ruler or minister stands alongside ordinary devotees.
The process allows an individual to acknowledge a lapse, undertake atonement and seek restoration within the collective fold of the Panth.
Political Power Has Not Meant Religious Immunity
Sikh history contains several examples showing that political office does not necessarily place a Sikh beyond accountability before Akal Takht.
According to Sikh historical tradition, Maharaja Ranjit Singh was called to account in the early nineteenth century by Akali Phula Singh, the then Jathedar of Akal Takht, over an alleged violation of Sikh principles.
Despite ruling a powerful empire, the Maharaja is remembered as having presented himself not as a sovereign above scrutiny, but as a Sikh willing to accept religious discipline.
The enduring message of the episode is that political rank did not erase personal responsibility before the temporal seat of the Panth.
Modern Sikh history offers further examples.
Following Operation Blue Star in 1984, the then President of India, Giani Zail Singh, faced religious scrutiny and submitted his clarification.
Former Union minister Buta Singh faced religious action over his association with the government-sponsored reconstruction of Akal Takht after Operation Blue Star. He later sought forgiveness and underwent religious atonement before returning to the Sikh fold.
Former Punjab Chief Minister Surjit Singh Barnala was declared a tankhaiya following police action inside the Golden Temple complex. In 1988, he performed the prescribed sewa, including cleaning devotees' shoes.
More recently, Sukhbir Singh Badal was declared a tankhaiya on August 30, 2024, over decisions associated with the SAD-BJP governments between 2007 and 2017. On December 2, he and several former ministers were assigned religious service at Sikh shrines.
The historical circumstances of these cases were different. Yet the underlying principle remained broadly similar: holding public office did not exempt a Sikh from explaining conduct considered relevant to the faith and the Panth.
Religious Authority And Constitutional Power
Akal Takht is not a constitutional court, legislature, police authority or state agency.
It cannot imprison a person, invalidate legislation, disqualify an MLA or enforce a decision through the machinery of government. Its authority is religious, moral and institutional.
That authority flows from Sikh history, tradition and the community's acceptance of Akal Takht as the supreme temporal seat of the Panth.
An elected representative, meanwhile, is governed by the Constitution, legislative rules and the oath of office. A Sikh legislator may simultaneously feel religiously and morally accountable to Akal Takht.
These responsibilities operate in different spheres.
Appearing before Akal Takht does not automatically amount to surrendering the constitutional independence of the legislature. Similarly, asking an individual Sikh to explain his or her conduct does not transform the Takht into a constitutional court.
The difficulty arises when religious accountability and constitutional authority are deliberately presented as opponents.
The Question Behind The Satkar Legislation
The Punjab government argues that stringent legislation is necessary to prevent sacrilege and protect the sanctity of Guru Granth Sahib.
The objective is unquestionably serious. Incidents of sacrilege have caused deep anguish, social unrest and a continuing crisis of public trust in Punjab.
The present disagreement, however, concerns not only the objective of the law but also the process through which it was framed and passed.
Sikh religious leaders and the SGPC maintain that legislation directly concerning Guru Granth Sahib should have involved meaningful consultation with Akal Takht and representative Panthic institutions.
The summoned legislators may explain that they supported the measure in good faith. But they may also be asked whether sufficient consultation took place before the legislation was adopted.
A legislature possesses the constitutional authority to enact laws. Yet consultation on a deeply sensitive religious matter can strengthen both the legislation and public confidence in it.
A Test Beyond Party Politics
The June 29 proceedings should not be reduced to whether someone bows, apologises or delivers the strongest political statement outside the Secretariat.
The real test is whether Punjab can conduct a difficult institutional conversation without turning faith into an electoral weapon or constitutional privilege into a shield against moral accountability.
The Opposition has the right to question the government, and the Chief Minister has the right to defend himself against disputed allegations. But a religious pronouncement cannot automatically replace legal investigation, just as political disagreement should not diminish the dignity of Akal Takht.
Akal Takht has endured not because it possesses police power, but because it commands historical and moral respect within the Sikh Panth.
That authority must be preserved through transparency, fairness and restraint. The legislature must equally retain its constitutional independence.
Punjab does not need a confrontation between faith and democracy. It needs mature engagement in which both institutions understand their authority and their limits.
That is the meaning of the summons and the responsibility it places not merely upon those called to appear, but upon Punjab's entire political and religious leadership.
(Ravinder Singh Robin is a broadcast journalist with over two decades of experience in covering Punjab, Sikh affairs and border issues)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
