The Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed an FIR against a woman accused of hurting religious sentiments after she dressed up her pet dog as Lord Krishna for Janmashtami and shared the photo on WhatsApp. The Court held that an act done out of genuine love and devotion does not constitute an offence under Section 298 of the BNS.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed an FIR against a woman accused of hurting religious sentiments after she dressed up her pet dog as Lord Krishna for Janmashtami and posted a photo of it as her WhatsApp status.
Religion plays a major role in shaping people’s aesthetic views and their ideas of purity and impurity, beauty and ugliness, often reflecting their religious beliefs. In line with this, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR filed against a woman accused of hurting religious sentiments for allegedly dressing up her dog as Lord Krishna on the eve of Janmashtami.
In a July 1 order, Justice Subhas Mehla observed that the petitioner’s act dressing her pet in customary Janmashtami attire appeared to have been done in good faith and without malice.
The Court remarked,
“Individual expression of the petitioner, shaped by her personal experiences, cannot be criminalized merely because it does not align with the sensitivities of others. In the absence of mens rea, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated to validate subjective perceptions of hurt. Constitutional tolerance must override hypersensitivity which leads innocent acts to be construed as desecration,”
ALSO READ: “ISKCON is a Religious Fundamentalist Organization”: Bangladesh Govt. to High Court
He also noted that the photo was shared on WhatsApp out of love and affection, adding that the question of hurting others’ religious sentiments and disgracing Lord Krishna arises mainly from a narrow way of viewing the act that treats “dog” as an impure creation of “God.”
The court described the case as an exemplary instance of misconstruction of intent and a parochially narrow understanding of religious philosophy.
It further remarked that while the incident might seem small and harmless, it also provides an opportunity to reflect more deeply on how religion and spirituality influence one’s perspective on the beauty of life and creation particularly in Hinduism.
The court reasoned that the petitioner is Hindu and there was no basis to conclude that she intended to hurt the sentiments of her own community. It also took note that she is a childless woman and treats the pet dog as if it were her own child. Her action was therefore seen as part of the usual celebration associated with Janmashtami dressing up one’s child as Lord Krishna.
The court held that the criminal angle given to the matter was misconceived and exaggerated.
According to the FIR, the woman dressed her pet dog as Lord Krishna and posted pictures on her WhatsApp status. The complaint, the court noted, was filed by a man described as a youth leader of Shiv Sena, who alleged that she had hurt Hindu sentiments by dressing her dog as Krishna.
The woman, however, stated that a few days before Janmashtami, she dressed the dog with a crown associated with Shri Krishna and took its photograph. On the day of Janmashtami, she uploaded that image as her WhatsApp status. She also claimed she did not know that such an act would offend the sentiments of anyone.
The court further discussed that, in Hindu iconography and mythology, the dog holds a respected position as the vehicle of Kal Bhairava, a manifestation of Lord Shiva. It noted that idols of Bhairava on black dogs are worshipped by several sects, especially those connected to Tantric traditions.
The court stated that the dog symbolizes loyalty, compassion, vigilance, and protection making it a fitting companion to divine power. It also referred to the depiction of Lord Dattatreya with four dogs around him, explaining that these dogs represent the four Vedas.
The court said this could indicate, in a meaningful way, that sacred knowledge exists even in what society may wrongly label as lowly.
The court observed that the FIR was filed by the complainant to fulfill his personal motive of gaining political capital, since he identified himself as a youth leader of a political party.
It added that, while assessing whether the petitioner’s act affected society’s sensitivities, it is important to recognize that aesthetics and morality shape modern common conscience.
It gave an example: a tiger is often regarded as a symbol of strength and valour, while a rodent is frequently viewed as dirty and frightening and therefore targeted to protect sanitation. It explained that the difference is not only in the potential harm to humans, but also in appearance and how that appearance influences perception.
Because of this, the court held that the petitioner’s individual expression shaped by personal experience cannot be treated as criminal merely because it does not match the sensitivities of others.
It said that without mens rea, criminal proceedings cannot be started simply to validate subjective feelings of hurt. It emphasized that constitutional tolerance must prevail over hypersensitivity, which can lead to innocent acts being wrongly treated as desecration.
The court also remarked that there is God in rivers, trees, mountains, the sun, the moon, animals, and birds pointing to animism, the belief that all things (including animals, rocks, and rivers) contain a spiritual essence.
The court said that in Vedic tradition, natural phenomena were closely linked with the divine citing Indra as the God of Rain, and similarly Agni (fire), Varuna (sky/water), Vayu (wind), Prithvi (earth), Surya (sun), and Ushas (dawn).
It also noted how the sacredness of the cow and rivers like Saraswati and Ganga, rooted in their social and economic significance, carried on into religious importance.
The Court observed,
“The gesture made by the petitioner by dressing up her pet in the customary attire of Janmashtami seems to have been done in good faith and without malice. The posting of the photo on WhatsApp appears to be out of an intention of love and for showcasing her affection. The question of hurting others’ religious sentiments and disgracing Lord Krishna arises primarily because of a myopic viewpoint that visualizes ‘dog’ as an impure creation of God,”
Justice Mehla then quoted a line from Ramcharitramanas,
“Jaaki rahi bhaavana jaisi, Prabhu moorat dekhi tin taisi”
He explained that the line reflects how a person perceives the divine based on their inner feelings, intentions, and mindset. The court reiterated that the petitioner’s individual expression, shaped by her personal experience, cannot be criminalized simply because it does not align with the sensitivities of others.