On 13th July 2026, protesters under the banner of the Qaumi Insaaf Morcha marched to the residence of Punjab Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) president Kewal Singh Dhillon in Barnala. They demanded the release of Sikh prisoners, commonly called the ‘Bandi Singhs’. The protesters threatened to intensify the agitation and announced protests during Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s proposed visit to Haryana. Members of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar) and the Krantikari Kisan Union were also part of the protest.
Nine days after the protest, Balwant Singh Rajoana, the Khalistani terrorist sentenced to death for his role in the assassination of former Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh, wrote to the acting Jathedar of the Akal Takht. In his letter, Rajoana reportedly asked the Sikh clergy to either secure the withdrawal of the mercy petition filed on his behalf or summon Sikh leaders in the BJP to explain why his fate had remained undecided for years.
On 29th July, supporters of jailed Khadoor Sahib MP Amritpal Singh marched towards Chandigarh under the banner of Akali Dal Waris Punjab De. They demanded the release of Amritpal Singh and the ‘Bandi Singhs’.
#WATCH | Chandigarh: Leaders and workers of Akali Dal Waris Punjab De hold a protest demanding the release of its MP Amritpal Singh and other sikhs
— ANI (@ANI) July 29, 2026
A heavy police force has been deployed, and barricades have been put up to stop the protestors at the Chandigarh-Mohali border. pic.twitter.com/pNDpOOHyfB
Police had to use water cannons after protesters attempted to cross the barricades. Visuals of a protester climbing onto a water-cannon vehicle went viral on social media platforms.
🎥 | Police used water cannons to disperse Akali Dal Waris Punjab De protesters demanding the release of MP Amritpal Singh and other Sikh leaders at the Chandigarh-Mohali border.#AmritpalSingh #AkaliDalWarisPunjabDe #Protest #TheStatesman pic.twitter.com/w5wnvzwu7v
— The Statesman (@TheStatesmanLtd) July 29, 2026
Together, these developments show how the campaign for the so-called “Bandi Singhs” has moved far beyond the legal cases of individual prisoners. It is now a permanent political instrument in Punjab.
The Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee (SGPC) uses it to assert institutional leadership over Sikh affairs. The Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) uses it to recover the Panthic ground it lost after years in power. The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) tries to appear sympathetic while maintaining caution over security. Congress leaders, despite the assassination of their own former chief minister, now demand the release of those who have supposedly “completed their sentences”. The BJP alternates between caution over national security and Sikh outreach. It is evident that the issue of “Bandi Singhs” has become a bargaining chip in Punjab’s political landscape.
The expression “Bandi Singh” has helped these parties avoid an uncomfortable description of the men whose release they seek. The most prominent names are not ordinary detainees imprisoned for peaceful political activities. They include hardcore terrorists convicted of assassinating a chief minister, bombing civilians, conspiring to commit murder, using explosives and escaping from prison. The first list entered the mainstream in 2013 with a demand for the release of nine prisoners. The number has now increased exponentially to include Sikh men facing trial for the targeted murders of Hindu and RSS leaders.
Who are ‘Bandi Singhs’
The word “Bandi” literally means a prisoner or detainee. The expression “Bandi Singh” is used by Sikh political and religious organisations for Sikh prisoners whom they regard as political prisoners. Notably, it is not a legal term but an expression created to foster a sympathetic atmosphere.
The SGPC’s principal campaign concentrates on nine men, including Gurdeep Singh Khera, Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar, Balwant Singh Rajoana, Jagtar Singh Hawara, Jagtar Singh Tara, Lakhwinder Singh Lakha, Gurmeet Singh, Shamsher Singh and Paramjit Singh Bheora. In January 2023, the SGPC announced that it would provide each of them with an honorarium of Rs 20,000 per month, besides legal assistance.
In broader lists, many more names have appeared over time. Advocate Jaspal Singh Manjhpur prepared a list of 85 “Sikh political prisoners” in 2014. The SGPC itself has expanded the list to 22 prisoners. Newer lists include Jagtar Singh Johal, Hardeep Singh Shera, Ramandeep Singh Bagga and Dharminder Singh Gugni under the same umbrella, even though they are principally undertrials in pending NIA cases rather than old life convicts seeking remission.
In short, there is no single authoritative roster. Political organisations and NGOs trying to free the so-called “Bandi Singhs” often release and update their own lists. For example, Akali Dal Waris Punjab De, the political party headed by jailed pro-Khalistan MP Amritpal Singh, has included Singh’s name in the list. Thus, these lists can expand or contract depending on what these organisations are trying to achieve.
One label conceals several different legal positions
The expression mixes at least four legally distinct groups. The first consists of Sikh men sentenced to death, most prominently Rajoana. The second comprises life convicts such as Hawara, Bhullar and Khera, who require remission, commutation, clemency or premature release from the appropriate government. The third contains prisoners who have already been released or placed on permanent parole but remain part of the political campaign. The fourth includes undertrials such as Johal, Shera and Bagga, and now Amritpal Singh, whose supporters seek bail or an end to prolonged incarceration before the conclusion of trial.
While those who demand their release claim that many of them have “completed their sentences”, this would be inaccurate in legal terms. A fixed sentence of ten years may expire after ten years, subject to the calculation of custody and remissions. A life sentence does not ordinarily end after 14 or 20 years.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the remainder of the convict’s natural life unless the sentence is commuted or remitted by the competent authority. Fourteen years may be a statutory minimum in certain categories and a threshold for consideration under a remission policy. It is not an automatic release date.
It is important to understand the process and legal aspects of these cases because the political campaign depends heavily on the phrase “sentence completed”. It creates the impression that prison officials are unlawfully detaining Sikh men after their judicial punishment has expired. In most prominent cases, that is not what has happened. The men are serving life or death sentences and seek an executive decision to reduce those sentences.
The victims pushed out of the political narrative
The release campaigns are usually supported by photographic stories of ageing prisoners, families of undertrials, elderly parents, religious gatherings and appeals for “humanitarian” treatment. However, the people killed in their crimes receive considerably less attention.
On 31st August 1995, a Khalistani suicide bomber killed then-Punjab Chief Minister Beant Singh and 16 others. Around a dozen more people were injured. The Supreme Court recorded in its judgment that Rajoana and the other accused were tried for conspiring to plan and execute the attack. Rajoana, Hawara, Gurmeet Singh, Lakhwinder Singh and Shamsher Singh were among those convicted in 2007, 13 years after the bomb blast.
Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar was convicted in the 1993 car bombing in Delhi that targeted Indian Youth Congress president MS Bitta. Nine people were killed and several others were injured. Bhullar’s death sentence was later commuted because of the prolonged delay in deciding his mercy petition.
While a serious discussion about parole or remission may consider time served, age, conduct and health, it is important to consider the gravity of the crimes, their effect on society, the danger of political glorification and the rights of the victims. The language used by the campaign to seek the release of these convicted criminals, however, transforms them into representatives of the entire Sikh community and treats opposition to their release as opposition to Sikhs.
The core nine promoted by the SGPC
Seven of the SGPC’s nine principal prisoners are connected with the assassination of Beant Singh. The other two were convicted in separate terrorist bombing cases.
Balwant Singh Rajoana
Balwant Singh Rajoana was a Punjab Police constable. He was convicted of participating in the conspiracy to assassinate Beant Singh and sentenced to death by a special CBI court in 2007. The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed his conviction and sentence. Unlike Hawara, Rajoana did not appeal against his death sentence.
His execution was scheduled for 31st March 2012. The SGPC filed a mercy petition before the President, after which the execution was stayed. Rajoana has repeatedly maintained that he did not personally seek mercy and has demanded that the SGPC withdraw the petition if it cannot secure a final decision.
In 2019, the Union Home Ministry communicated that a proposal to commute the death sentence of one Sikh prisoner would be processed under Article 72. The Supreme Court later held that the communication did not itself complete the commutation. In May 2023, the court refused to commute Rajoana’s sentence merely on the ground of delay after examining the Centre’s decision to defer the matter.
As of July 2026, he continued to be described as a death-row convict. His case has become the most politically useful of all the Bandi Singh cases because every party can demand a decision while blaming another authority for the delay.
Jagtar Singh Hawara
Jagtar Singh Hawara was also sentenced to death for the Beant Singh assassination. The Punjab and Haryana High Court commuted his sentence to life imprisonment in 2010. His appeal and the CBI’s challenge to the commutation subsequently reached the Supreme Court.
Hawara escaped from Burail Jail on 23rd January 2004 through a tunnel, along with Paramjit Singh Bheora, Jagtar Singh Tara and another prisoner. He was arrested again in 2005. The jailbreak is often treated romantically in Khalistani propaganda, but it was an organised escape by men facing or serving punishment for terrorism and murder.
In May 2025, Hawara was acquitted in a separate arms and explosives case. His lawyer said that the acquittal brought the proceedings in all 32 cases against him to an end. The acquittal did not erase his life sentence in the Beant Singh assassination case.
Hawara has also acquired religious-political significance. During a 2015 gathering described as the Sarbat Khalsa, he was declared Jathedar of the Akal Takht. The SGPC-controlled institutional establishment did not accept that declaration. In February 2026, a large gathering at Hawara’s native village gave the Bhagwant Mann government one week to approve parole so that he could meet his mother. Simranjit Singh Mann, chief of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar), former Akal Takht Jathedar Giani Harpreet Singh and Qaumi Insaaf Morcha leaders were part of the gathering.
Jagtar Singh Tara
Jagtar Singh Tara was prosecuted for the Beant Singh assassination conspiracy. He escaped from Burail Jail in 2004 and remained outside India until his arrest in Thailand. He was brought back to India in 2015.
A Chandigarh court convicted Tara in 2018 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He remains one of the central figures in the campaign because of both his conviction and the glorification surrounding the jailbreak. The SGPC includes him among the nine prisoners receiving institutional financial and legal support. Tara has received limited in-custody parole for family occasions.
Lakhwinder Singh Lakha
Lakhwinder Singh, also called Lakha or Hero, was convicted of murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and offences under the Explosive Substances Act in the Beant Singh case. He has been in custody since 1995 and has availed himself of parole.
The release campaign repeatedly presents his long incarceration as proof that he has served more than enough time. Legally, however, he is a life convict. The time spent in prison makes him eligible to seek consideration under the applicable policy. It does not automatically extinguish the sentence imposed for the assassination and the deaths accompanying it.
Gurmeet Singh alias Meeta Engineer
Gurmeet Singh was convicted in the same Beant Singh assassination case under provisions relating to murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and explosives. He has remained imprisoned since 1995 and has received parole. He has also pursued premature release through legal proceedings.
Campaigners frequently call him “Meeta Engineer”, using his professional background to humanise him. His education or profession does not alter the fact that a court convicted him as part of the terrorist conspiracy that killed 17 people.
Shamsher Singh
Shamsher Singh, a resident of Patiala district, was convicted in the Beant Singh assassination case and sentenced to life imprisonment. Activist records describe him as being in custody since 1995, with parole having been granted during the sentence.
He is generally discussed together with Lakha and Gurmeet because all three were convicted in the same case, are housed or have been housed in Burail Jail and have pursued release after decades in prison.
Paramjit Singh Bheora
Paramjit Singh Bheora was convicted in the Beant Singh assassination case and sentenced to life imprisonment. He escaped from Burail Jail in January 2004 and was arrested again in March 2006.
Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar
Devinder Pal Singh Bhullar was convicted by a designated TADA court for the September 1993 Delhi bombing that killed nine people and injured several others. He was sentenced to death. In 2014, the Supreme Court commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment because of the delay in deciding his mercy petition and considerations relating to his health. However, the conviction itself remained intact.
Bhullar was transferred from Delhi to Punjab and has received repeated parole and medical treatment. His inclusion in the Union government’s 2019 special-remission communication did not result in his permanent release because the competent Delhi authorities continued to review his case.
The Delhi Sentence Review Board considered the matter again at its meeting on 23rd December 2025. The Delhi government formally communicated in February 2026 that his request had been rejected. MS Bitta, who survived the bombing, opposed the release and warned that it could pose a security risk and revive extremist networks.
Both the AAP-led and BJP-led Delhi governments rejected Bhullar’s plea for release.
Gurdeep Singh Khera
Gurdeep Singh Khera was arrested in 1990 and sentenced to two life terms in connection with bombing cases in Delhi and Karnataka. He was convicted under TADA and provisions covering murder, attempted murder, conspiracy and explosives.
Delhi granted relief in one case, but the Karnataka sentence continued. Khera was later transferred to Amritsar on humanitarian grounds and received regular parole. Punjab could house him and recommend relief, but it could not unilaterally cancel a sentence imposed in Karnataka.
Khera was among the eight prisoners named in the Union Home Ministry’s 2019 special-remission communication. Yet implementation required action by the authority legally responsible for the sentence.
The Centre’s 2019 decision
The Union government’s September 2019 communication was issued during the celebrations of the 550th birth anniversary of Guru Nanak Dev. It said eight Sikh prisoners should receive special remission and be released. It also said that a proposal to commute Rajoana’s death sentence would be processed separately under Article 72.
The Supreme Court reproduced the eight names in one of its 2023 orders that included Lal Singh alias Manjit Singh, Devinder Singh Bhullar, Subheg Singh, Nand Singh, Harjinder Singh Kali, Waryam Singh alias Sabir alias Giani, Gurdeep Singh Khera and Balbir Singh. Rajoana was the ninth prisoner whose death sentence was to be considered for commutation.
The announcement was politically significant but legally incomplete. Article 161 concerns the governor’s clemency power. Different prisoners had been convicted by courts in different jurisdictions, and some cases involved central investigative agencies or special laws. The Centre could give concurrence where required and request action, but every release still required completion of the proper constitutional or statutory process.
The other names associated with the campaign
While the initial list included only nine names, more names were added in the following years.
The list was prepared by Advocate Jaspal Singh Manjhpur of the District Courts, Ludhiana, and was dated 15th November 2014. He described it as a “tentative list of 85 Sikh political prisoners in different jails in India”. It contained 85 names, comprising one death-row convict, 17 life convicts and 67 other prisoners serving fixed sentences, facing trials or held in police custody. The following names exclude the prominent prisoners already covered in the initial list.
Lal Singh alias Manjit Singh: Sentenced to life imprisonment under TADA, criminal-conspiracy provisions, the Explosive Substances Act and the Arms Act.
Dilbagh Singh: Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, an offence under Section 382 of the IPC and an offence under TADA.
Swaran Singh: Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and an offence under TADA.
Balbir Singh alias Bira alias Bhootna: Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, attempted murder and an offence under the Arms Act.
Subheg Singh: Sentenced to life imprisonment in a Chandigarh case involving murder, theft, robbery and criminal conspiracy.
Hardeep Singh: Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, rioting, unlawful assembly and offences under the Arms Act and TADA.
Baj Singh: Listed as a life convict imprisoned since 1993 in a TADA case. The document does not provide further details of the offence.
Waryam Singh: Sentenced to life imprisonment by a designated TADA court in Pilibhit for criminal conspiracy and an offence under TADA.
Gurmeet Singh Fauji: Listed as a life convict imprisoned since 1995 for murder under Section 302 of the IPC.
Daya Singh Lahoria: Listed as a life convict imprisoned since 1995 in a TADA case. The document does not provide further details of the offence.
Harjinder Singh Kali: Sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment in a TADA case whose proceedings had continued since 1987.
Bakhsish Singh Baba: Sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment in an attempted-murder case under Section 307 of the IPC.
Pal Singh France: Sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under the Explosive Substances Act and was facing two UAPA cases.
Gurmukh Singh: Sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under the Explosive Substances Act and was facing one UAPA case.
Makhan Singh Gill: Sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under the Explosive Substances Act and was facing four UAPA cases.
Darshan Singh Baba: Sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment in a UAPA case and was facing another UAPA case.
Jagmohan Singh: Sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment in a UAPA case and was facing another UAPA case.
Gurpreet Singh Khalsa: Listed as a prisoner in the Shingar Cinema bombing case and stated to have been in custody since December 2007.
Harminder Singh: Listed in connection with the Shingar Cinema bombing and four UAPA cases.
Ravinder Singh Rinku: Listed as a prisoner in the Shingar Cinema bombing case and stated to have been in custody since December 2007.
The other prisoners named in Manjhpur’s list included Bapu Maan Singh, Baba Balbir Singh, Bapu Harbhajan Singh, Bapu Balwinder Singh, Bapu Mohan Singh, Bapu Saroop Singh, Bapu Avtar Singh, Bapu Sewa Singh, Harpreet Singh alias Pintu, Karanjit Singh, Mohinderpal Singh, Daljit Singh Coach, Amarjit Singh, Kewal Singh Sondh, Narain Singh Chaurra, Harnek Singh Bhapp, Rattandeep Singh, Harminder Singh Mintu, Ramandeep Singh Goldy, Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi and several others.
Jaggi Johal and the newer terror cases
The inclusion of Jagtar Singh Johal demonstrates how the Bandi Singh label has evolved.
Johal is not one of the core nine. He was not a life convict from the terrorism period of the 1980s or 1990s seeking remission after three decades. He was arrested in 2017 and faces NIA prosecutions linked to the targeted killings and attempted killings of Hindu, RSS and other leaders in Punjab during 2016 and 2017.
Jagtar Singh Johal alias Jaggi Johal
Johal is a British citizen. The prosecution statec that he participated in a broader conspiracy connected with the Khalistan Liberation Force, helped to finance the network and was associated with propaganda and recruitment activity.
In a 2022 judgment refusing to discharge him in one case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court recorded the NIA allegation that the targeted attacks were intended to destabilise law and order and revive terrorism in Punjab. The court noted that the special court had found prima facie material to proceed on allegations that Johal conspired, abetted, funded and facilitated a terrorist act. These were findings at the charge stage, not a final conviction.
Johal was acquitted in one Punjab Police case in March 2025, but the acquittal did not dispose of the other NIA prosecutions. By February 2026, evidence was being recorded in Delhi in cases involving the murders and attempted murders of Hindu and RSS leaders. His bail proceedings also remained pending before the Supreme Court.
His supporters allege torture, fabricated evidence and oppressive pre-trial detention. Indian agencies allege participation in a transnational Khalistani terrorist conspiracy. Until the trials conclude, he must be described as an accused, not a convicted terrorist. Equally, his acquittal in one case cannot be misrepresented as exoneration in all pending cases.
Hardeep Singh Shera
Hardeep Singh alias Shera alias Pahalwan is accused by the NIA of being one of the principal shooters in the targeted-killing conspiracy. The prosecution alleged that he and Ramandeep Singh Bagga carried out a series of murders and attempted murders in Ludhiana and Jalandhar during 2016 and 2017.
By February 2026, Shera was among the accused produced before the special NIA court in Delhi while prosecution witnesses gave evidence. He faced charges in several murder and attempted-murder cases.
Shera is therefore a terror accused facing trial, not a long-serving life convict whose remission has been withheld.
Ramandeep Singh Bagga
Ramandeep Singh, also called Bagga or Canadian Bagga, was chargesheeted alongside Shera, Johal and other accused. The NIA alleged that Bagga participated directly in the targeted attacks undertaken as part of the conspiracy to destabilise Punjab and revive Khalistani terrorism. His case was also before the special NIA court, which was taking evidence in 2026.
Dharminder Singh alias Gugni
Dharminder Singh alias Gugni was among the eight accused chargesheeted in the Amit Arora attempted-murder case. He filed a discharge application separately from Johal, and the proceedings were dealt with in the same special court order.
Investigators have linked him to the wider logistics and weapons network associated with the targeted killings. His guilt remains for the trial court to determine. He should be described as an accused in Khalistani terror-related cases rather than a convicted Bandi Singh.
Amritpal Singh and the latest expansion of Bandi Singh politics
Amritpal Singh occupies a separate category in the Bandi Singh debate. He is not part of the SGPC’s core nine, was not named in the 2019 special-remission initiative and is not seeking release after serving decades under a life sentence. He is a pro-Khalistan leader, an elected Khadoor Sahib MP and an undertrial whose incarceration has been linked to the campaign.
Amritpal Singh became the head of Waris Punjab De in 2022. His supporters presented him as a preacher and anti-drug campaigner, while critics accused him of radicalisation, armed mobilisation and promoting Khalistan.
On 23rd February 2023, he and his supporters gathered at Ajnala police station seeking the release of Lovepreet Singh alias Toofan. According to the prosecution, an armed mob carrying swords, spears and firearms broke through barricades, entered the police complex, assaulted personnel and damaged government property. The charges include attempt to murder, criminal conspiracy, rioting, assault on public servants and Arms Act offences. Protesters also carried the Guru Granth Sahib while advancing towards the police station, placing officers in the position of confronting an armed crowd behind the holy scripture.
Punjab Police launched a crackdown in March 2023. Amritpal remained absconding for weeks before his arrest in April. He was detained under the National Security Act and shifted to Dibrugarh Jail.
While in detention, he contested and won the 2024 Lok Sabha election from Khadoor Sahib. His third NSA detention ended on 22nd April 2026, but Punjab Police arrested him the next day in the Ajnala attack case. He remains in judicial custody.
His inclusion became politically explicit on 29th July 2026, when Akali Dal Waris Punjab De supporters demanded the release of Amritpal and the Bandi Singhs. This shows how the campaign has expanded from old remission claims to the release of a recently arrested undertrial who is also a sitting MP.
How the release movement developed
The modern mobilisation began before the Qaumi Insaaf Morcha’s permanent encampment. In November 2013, Gurbaksh Singh Khalsa began a hunger strike at Gurdwara Amb Sahib in Mohali. His original demand focused on a smaller number of Sikh prisoners. The protest continued for 44 days and helped turn separate remission cases into a common Panthic issue.
A second hunger strike began in 2014. Bapu Surat Singh Khalsa then launched his own prolonged fast in January 2015. These protests popularised the claim that Sikh prisoners were being detained after “completing” their sentences, although the lists mixed life convicts, fixed-term convicts and persons facing pending cases.
The SGPC later gave the campaign a more organised institutional form. It launched a signature drive in December 2022 and said that it had collected approximately 26 lakh signatures. In November 2023, an SGPC delegation handed the material to the Punjab Governor for transmission to the President.
On 7th January 2023, the Qaumi Insaaf Morcha established a permanent protest near the Chandigarh-Mohali border. The encampment drew support from Panthic organisations, prisoner families, Nihang groups, farmer unions and political leaders. Its demands also expanded beyond prisoner release to include action in sacrilege cases and police-firing incidents.
The protest has survived because it provides a shared platform for groups that otherwise disagree over leadership, elections and control of Sikh institutions.
Violence during protests for their release
While there have been claims that the campaign is peaceful and humanitarian, there have been several serious incidents of violence in which armed protesters attacked police personnel and damaged public property. One of the most notable incidents of violence occurred in February 2023 at the Chandigarh-Mohali border.
On 8th February 2023, protesters attempted to cross barricades while marching towards the Punjab chief minister’s residence. Police used water cannons. The confrontation then escalated.
Around 33 police and Rapid Action Force personnel were injured. Protesters carrying swords, sticks and iron rods attacked personnel and damaged a water-cannon vehicle, a riot-control vehicle, police jeeps and a fire-fighting vehicle. Stones were also thrown.
Chandigarh Police registered an FIR against seven known and several unknown protesters on charges including attempt to murder, robbery, dacoity and rioting, besides offences under the Arms Act and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
According to the police and available reports, the protesters snatched a tear-gas handgun and ammunition, attacked officers with swords, spears and sticks, and raised pro-Khalistan slogans. CCTV footage released by police reportedly showed protesters attacking vehicles. Morcha representatives denied the allegations and accused police of filing a false case.
The FIR named Gurcharan Singh, who was described as Hawara’s foster father, lawyer Amar Singh Chahal and other ‘activists’ connected with the movement.
A second such incident occurred in January 2025, when another march towards Chandigarh turned violent. Police said around 100 protesters carrying swords and sharp weapons jumped barricades, threw stones and attacked personnel. Three police officials were injured. Tear gas, water cannons and a lathi charge were used, while several protesters were detained.
The recurrence of such incidents shows that the weapons carried during the mobilisation were not merely ceremonial objects without consequences. On more than one occasion, police barricades were forced and officers were attacked.
Toll plazas and disruption as political pressure
By January 2026, the Qaumi Insaaf Morcha and supporting farmer unions had expanded their tactics. Activists took over toll plazas in several districts and allowed motorists to pass without paying for three hours. Organisers said the programme was intended to target as many as 49 toll plazas and warned of further road blockades.
Such actions impose unnecessary financial and administrative costs on the public. Furthermore, by indulging in such actions, the protesters do not gain any legal authority to determine the cases of the Bandi Singhs. The only purpose of these actions is to get into the headlines and propagate their agenda.
Amritpal protest confrontation in July 2026
The 29th July march again resulted in a confrontation at the Chandigarh border. Police used water cannons as Amritpal Singh’s supporters pushed against barricades. A protester climbed onto a police water-cannon vehicle while demonstrators demanded the release of Amritpal and the Bandi Singhs. The incident showed that the organisational methods of the older prisoner-release campaign are now being inherited by Amritpal’s political formation.
The SGPC turned the campaign into an institution
The role of the SGPC has been significant in the movement to free the Bandi Singhs. It does not merely issue occasional statements but also provides financial and legal assistance to them. It has organised signature campaigns and uses its religious authority to portray the issue as a collective Sikh grievance while giving convicted criminals the status of ‘Sikh heroes’.
In January 2023, the SGPC approved Rs 20,000 per month for each of the core nine. It constituted a six-member legal advisory board and announced that it would take the matter to international bodies.
The SGPC later allocated Rs 60 lakh for legal cases connected with Sikh prisoners and Rs 40 lakh for honoraria in its 2024-25 budget.
It has also repeatedly compared the prisoners with Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim, citing the paroles and furloughs granted to him as proof of unequal treatment. While the comparison is not legally viable, it provides the SGPC with a politically potent weapon to demand the release of the Bandi Singhs.
The SGPC’s deepest involvement concerns Rajoana. It filed the mercy petition that stayed his execution. That decision saved him from his scheduled execution in 2012, but it also left him in prolonged legal uncertainty. Rajoana now accuses the same institutional leadership of trapping him in a political process he never requested.
The Akali Dal’s attempt to recover Panthic ground
The Shiromani Akali Dal presents itself as the principal political advocate of the prisoners. It demands the implementation of the 2019 decision, criticises the Centre, attacks AAP and invokes alleged discrimination against Sikhs.
In February 2023, SAD president Sukhbir Singh Badal accused Union minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat of misleading Punjab by claiming that most eligible Sikh prisoners had already been released. Badal said a list of 22 had been submitted to the Prime Minister and the Union Home Minister. He also compared the cases with the release of convicts in the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case.
However, the Akali Dal’s campaign faces an obvious credibility problem. The party governed Punjab for long periods. It remained allied with the BJP-led Centre until 2020. The SGPC remained institutionally dominated by the Akali establishment. Yet the most prominent cases remained unresolved.
The renewed emphasis after the SAD’s disastrous performance in the 2022 Assembly election cannot be separated from its effort to regain the Panthic vote. Several media reports noted that the party had revived emotive issues such as Bandi Singhs after being reduced to the electoral margins.
The issue serves a clear electoral function for the SAD. The party can accuse the Centre of betrayal, AAP of cowardice and rival Panthic formations of fragmentation while presenting itself as the indispensable intermediary between Sikh institutions and the state.
AAP’s careful sympathy and refusal to own the consequences
Before coming to power in Punjab, AAP could endorse humanitarian treatment without carrying administrative responsibility. After March 2022, Bhagwant Mann had to deal with a permanent protest, parole applications, police deployment and pressure to formally recommend releases.
AAP’s stated position has been that prisoners who have “completed their sentences” should be released on humanitarian grounds. Punjab AAP spokesperson Malvinder Singh Kang articulated that position in 2023.
While party leaders attempt to protect themselves in the political landscape with such statements, they avoid giving a clear answer on whether AAP supports the release of specific terrorists convicted of murdering 17 people, bombing civilians or escaping from jail.
Punjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Mann has attacked the Badals for failing to secure releases during their years in power and their alliance with the BJP. However, despite the effective political criticism, AAP itself has failed to answer what the Mann-led Punjab government is prepared to recommend in cases over which it has competence.
The Qaumi Insaaf Morcha therefore targets Mann directly. The February 2026 gathering at Hawara Kalan gave him a deadline to approve parole for Hawara. Protesters threatened to intensify the agitation and conduct prayers seeking his removal if the state did not act.
Bhullar creates a second contradiction. The case fell within Delhi’s remission machinery, where AAP governed for years. Sikh organisations accused Arvind Kejriwal’s administration of delaying or rejecting Bhullar’s release. Punjab AAP could blame other jurisdictions, but the party’s Delhi government had itself been one of the relevant authorities.
Therefore, AAP can be seen as a party of opportunity. It conveniently plays dual roles. In Punjab, it speaks the language of Sikh sentiment, but while it was in power in Delhi, it invoked procedure, jurisdiction and law and order. In the end, the issue of the Bandi Singhs remained an issue that the party could raise merely to gain some brownie points without actually doing anything.
The BJP’s position – 2019 relief, national-security caution and Sikh outreach
The BJP’s stand on the issue of the Bandi Singhs has been extremely cautious. The Modi government issued the 2019 communication proposing special remission for eight prisoners and processing commutation for Rajoana. The Supreme Court judgment in Rajoana’s case confirms the communication and the names attached to it.
However, the Centre later defended the decision to defer Rajoana’s commutation and referred to the sensitivity of the matter. The Supreme Court declined to substitute its own decision for that of the competent executive authority.
During the BJP’s attempts to expand in Punjab, Union minister Gajendra Singh Shekhawat filled in an SGPC form supporting the release of eligible prisoners. He said the BJP was prepared to consider further releases permissible under law. He also claimed that nine of 11 prisoners had already obtained relief. However, campaigners and the SAD claimed that it was just a whitewash.
The BJP often finds itself in an uneasy position, as the issue is related to national security. Supporting a general humanitarian review appeals to Sikh voters. However, taking direct responsibility for the release of convicted terrorists would lead to national and legal consequences.
The case of Bhullar perfectly illustrates the tension. BJP spokesperson RP Singh urged the BJP-led Delhi government to consider his release on humanitarian grounds in 2025. Yet the Delhi Sentence Review Board rejected Bhullar’s request in December 2025, and the rejection was communicated in February 2026.
By July 2026, the Qaumi Insaaf Morcha protested outside the Punjab BJP president’s house and threatened demonstrations during the Prime Minister’s visit.
The BJP may argue that it has done more than previous central governments by issuing the 2019 communication. Its opponents can point out that the most politically prominent cases remained unresolved years later. In short, the issue of the Bandi Singhs remains unresolved because no one is prepared to take a concrete stand.
Congress now supports release despite the assassination of Beant Singh
Congress occupies the most politically uncomfortable position. Beant Singh was a Congress chief minister. He was assassinated while Punjab was emerging from years of Khalistani terrorism. Seven of the core prisoners glorified in campaigns seeking the release of the Bandi Singhs are connected with the conspiracy that killed him and 16 others.
MS Bitta, a Congress leader and survivor of the 1993 Delhi bombing, has consistently opposed Bhullar’s release. In 2026, he warned the Delhi government that permanent release could threaten national security and encourage extremist networks.
Punjab Congress leaders, however, increasingly use the same “completed sentences” formulation adopted by AAP, SAD and Panthic organisations.
In March 2026, Punjab Congress president Amrinder Singh Raja Warring demanded in the Lok Sabha that Bandi Singhs who had supposedly completed their terms be released. He accused BJP leader Ravneet Singh Bittu and SAD leader Harsimrat Kaur Badal of secretly meeting Union Home Minister Amit Shah to stall the releases while publicly presenting themselves as supporters.
Warring attempted to universalise the position by saying all prisoners who had completed their sentences should be released, irrespective of religion. Congress’s position is also complicated by Ravneet Singh Bittu, Beant Singh’s grandson, who left Congress and joined the BJP. His opposition or changing approach to the release campaign is now used by Congress to attack the BJP, even though the underlying assassination was an attack on a Congress government and its chief minister.
The party is trying to avoid appearing anti-Sikh in Punjab while distancing itself from the consequences of releasing the men who murdered one of its most important state leaders.
Simranjit Singh Mann and hardline Panthic organisations
For Simranjit Singh Mann and the SAD (Amritsar), Bandi Singh politics is not a tactical adjustment. It is consistent with the party’s longstanding ideological position.
Mann and allied organisations have supported Hawara, Rajoana and other prisoners, participated in gatherings, challenged the legitimacy of the Indian state’s treatment of Sikh terror cases and advocated political recognition of Khalistan.
The issue allows hardline formations to question the Panthic credentials of mainstream parties. The SAD can be accused of compromising during its alliance with the BJP. AAP can be accused of using Punjab Police against Sikh activists. Congress can be linked to the counter-terrorism period. The BJP can be presented as the central authority refusing clemency.
Amritpal’s rise added a younger electoral figure to this space. His party can now compete with SAD (Amritsar) and the different Akali factions for the same political constituency.
Amritpal’s party and the fragmentation of Akali politics
Amritpal Singh’s supporters have built Akali Dal Waris Punjab De into a political formation centred on his imprisonment, pro-Khalistan politics, Sikh prisoner releases and claims of discrimination against Punjab.
Its leaders can invoke Amritpal’s electoral victory to claim democratic legitimacy while simultaneously aligning him with Hawara, Rajoana and other figures of symbolic importance in hardline Panthic politics.
By 2026, back-channel discussions were reportedly taking place among Akali factions over possible unity or cooperation ahead of the 2027 Punjab election. The formations included the SAD, breakaway Akali groups and Amritpal-aligned leaders.
Farmer unions expanded the movement beyond Panthic organisations
The participation of farmer unions has given the release campaign a wider organisational network. Groups that developed mobilisation capacity during the 2020-21 farm protests later supported the Qaumi Insaaf Morcha’s marches, toll actions and public gatherings. The Krantikari Kisan Union participated in the January 2026 toll-plaza action and the July 2026 protest outside the Punjab BJP president’s residence.
However, this does not mean that all farmer unions share the same ideological commitment to Khalistani prisoners. Some present their involvement as support for civil liberties, the uniform application of remission law and the right to protest. On the other hand, several other organisations operate within a broader Panthic political ecosystem.
Their presence nevertheless gives the campaign manpower, district-level organisation and the ability to disrupt roads and toll infrastructure. It also allows the movement to claim a constituency beyond explicitly Khalistani or hardline Sikh organisations.
The argument of unequal treatment
Supporters frequently compare Bandi Singhs with other high-profile convicts who received remission, parole or furlough. Gurmeet Ram Rahim is the most common comparison. The SGPC has accused governments of favouring him while denying similar relief to Sikh prisoners.
The comparison raises a legitimate policy question. Remission and parole decisions should be consistent, reasoned and free from electoral manipulation. Repeated temporary releases for politically influential convicts weaken public confidence in the entire process.
But unequal treatment cannot be corrected by the automatic release of another category of convicts. The proper response is transparent and legally uniform scrutiny of every case.
A life convict’s prison conduct, age and health matter. So do the number of victims, the nature of the conspiracy, the use of terrorism, the possibility of political glorification, prison escape, pending cases and security assessments. These factors cannot be replaced with a slogan based only on years in custody.
Why the ‘completed sentence’ claim is legally misleading
The campaign’s central assertion rests on a popular misunderstanding of life imprisonment. A life sentence does not ordinarily mean 14 years. It means the remainder of the convict’s natural life. Section 433A of the old Code of Criminal Procedure imposed a minimum of 14 years’ actual imprisonment in specified cases before release could occur. It did not create a general right to release on the fourteenth anniversary of conviction.
The Supreme Court has held that accumulated remissions do not automatically terminate a life sentence. Release requires an order from the appropriate government or constitutional clemency under Articles 72 or 161. Courts may also impose life sentences with minimum terms exceeding 14 years or for the remainder of natural life.
The expression “appropriate government” is equally important. If the offence occurred in Chandigarh, was investigated by the CBI or resulted in conviction by a particular court, Punjab may not possess unilateral authority to release the prisoner. Delhi, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, Chandigarh or the Union government may be the relevant authority. Some prisoners have sentences in more than one jurisdiction.
Transfer to a Punjab jail does not transfer the legal ownership of the sentence. Parole from one case does not cancel another sentence. Acquittal in one prosecution does not erase a separate conviction. Permanent parole does not necessarily amount to final remission.
Once these distinctions are restored, the claim that one homogeneous group remains illegally imprisoned after “completing” its punishment falls apart.
Why blanket release should be opposed
There is a defensible case for governments to decide mercy, parole and remission applications without indefinite delay. Executive indecision lasting years undermines the rule of law. Prisoners and victims are both entitled to reasoned decisions.
There is also a defensible case for examining age, illness, rehabilitation and prison conduct. Punishment should not be administered arbitrarily merely because a case is politically sensitive.
But none of this justifies a blanket release based on religious identity or political mobilisation. The core campaign seeks relief for men convicted of killing a chief minister and 16 other people. It seeks permanent freedom for a terrorist convicted in a bombing that killed nine. It includes a prison escapee. Its newer political interpretation embraces men accused of conspiring to murder Hindu and RSS leaders to destabilise Punjab and revive terrorism.
The demand is accompanied by an effort to change the moral identity of these men. A convicted terrorist becomes a “Singh” who has sacrificed for the Panth. A killer becomes a political dissident. A judicial sentence becomes communal discrimination. Opposition becomes hostility towards Sikhs.
That framing is dangerous for Punjab. It relocates acts of terrorism from the criminal record into a heroic political tradition. It tells younger supporters that the method may have been violent, but the cause remains worthy of reverence.
The violence at the Chandigarh-Mohali border should serve as a warning. A movement demanding the release of men convicted of terrorism saw sword-wielding protesters attack police personnel, damage vehicles and face allegations of raising pro-Khalistan slogans. Similar clashes occurred again in 2025.
The state cannot allow violence or the threat of disruption to determine who leaves prison.
Conclusion
The Bandi Singh issue is not merely a debate about old and ill prisoners who have spent decades away from their families. It is a struggle over how Punjab remembers Khalistani terrorism and whether those convicted of murder and bombings will be remembered as criminals or recast as political heroes.
Governments must decide individual remission, parole and clemency applications in accordance with the law. They should explain delays, apply consistent standards and prevent political favouritism.
They should not release convicted terrorists because political parties, religious institutions or armed protesters have converted their sentences into a communal demand.
The victims of the Beant Singh assassination did not cease to matter after 30 years. The nine people killed in the Delhi bombing did not become less dead because Bhullar grew older in prison. A prisoner’s passage of time may be relevant to mercy. It does not rewrite the crime.
Punjab’s parties have spent years competing to appear more sympathetic towards the prisoners. Very few have shown equal courage in reminding voters who these men are, what courts found them guilty of and how many people were killed.
That silence is the foundation on which the politics of “Bandi Singhs” has been built.
