Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Punjab & Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by a bank manager seeking quashment of FIR registered, by youth leader of Shiv Sena, against her for alleged desecration on the day of Janmashtami, by dressing up her pet dog as Lord Krishna and posting its pictures as WhatsApp status, a Single Judge Bench of Subhas Mehla, J., held that “constitutional tolerance must override hypersensitivity which leads innocent acts to be construed as desecration.”
Background
In the present case, a youth leader of Shiv Sena alleged that the petitioner committed the offence of desecration on the day of Janmashtami, by dressing up her pet dog as Lord Krishna and posting its pictures as WhatsApp status. He stated that the petitioner hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community by doing so whereupon the present FIR was registered under Section 298, Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).
During investigation, in her statement, the petitioner stated that she had been married for the last 6 years and had remained issueless, which was why she loved her pet dog and treated it as her own child. She further stated that she did not know that dressing up her dog with a yellow cloth, crown of Lord Krishna, and other ornaments would hurt the religious sentiments of any person.
Contentions
The petitioner contended that the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 298 BNS were not satisfied and that it was a case of initiation of proceedings by a hypersensitive person, as such an act would not hurt the sensibilities of an ordinary prudent person who is a member of the society.
Per contra, the respondent argued that the FIR prima facie discloses commission of the offence under Section 298 BNS.
Issue and Analysis
The Court stated that the issue involved in the case at hand was whether or not the act of the petitioner and the material collected during investigation by way of statement of the petitioner satisfied the ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 298 BNS.
Regarding the “object” in relation to Section 298 BNS, the Court stated that the same must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the word ‘place of worship’, thus, unless the “object” is in a place of worship, or carried in a procession on a festive occasion, Section 298 BNS would not apply. Therefore, the Court opined that the “object” which the petitioner made her pet dog wear, cannot be interpreted as “object” within the meaning of Section 298 BNS.
With respect to mens rea to constitute the offence, the Court stated that just how standard for assessing obscenity in cases of public display of affection was set as the perception of the ordinary prudent person in the society and not the most impressionable, depraved, or corrupt person in the society, in the present case, “criminal liability cannot be founded upon subjective hypersensitivity or idiosyncratic perceptions of offence; otherwise, the threshold for criminal prosecution would be left to the varying sensibilities of individuals rather than the objective standard contemplated by law”.
Further, the Court stated that aesthetics and morality govern the common conscience of modern society and “it is often seen that the ‘aesthetic’ sense of a group of people has a considerable impact on their sense of morality”. The Court stated that like a “tiger is seen as a symbol of strength and valour that must be held in high regard in the animal kingdom whereas a rodent is seen as a tiny dirty scared creature that must be eliminated for ensuring basic sanitary health”, it was not only the difference in the potential harm they cause to humans but also the difference in their appearances that affected our perception towards them. The Court further stated that “religion plays a major role in determining aesthetic attitudes” and “our notions of purity and impurity, of beauty and ugliness are shaped by our religious beliefs”.
The Court stated that the present case was an exemplary instance of misconstruction of intent and a parochially narrow understanding of religious philosophy. The Court stated that the gesture made by the petitioner by dressing up her pet in the customary attire of Janmashtami seemed to be done in good faith and without malice. The Court further stated that posting of the photo on WhatsApp appeared to be out of an intention of love and for showcasing her affection.
The Court opined that “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’ ”. Quoting Bhagavad Gita Chapter 5, Shloka 18 which translates to “the humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and even an outcaste”, the Court stated that the said verse acknowledges the innate unity in the perceived hierarchy of living beings and dog is an integral part of it in every literal sense. The Court stated that Gita is attributed to Lord Krishna himself, therefore, “if Krishna himself says that a sage sees no difference between a priest and a dog because the same divine soul resides in both, then seeing Krishna in a dog is not sacrilege, it is a realization of divine truth.”
Further, the Court stated that one of the final happenings in the great epic of Mahabharata, after the great battle is over, there is a description of Yudhishthira accompanied by a stray dog ascending to heaven where Lord Indra asks him to leave the unclean dog behind in order to enter heaven and Yudhishthira declines Indra’s instruction and conveys that he would rather give up heaven than abandon such a loyal creature. It is then that the dog shows its true form — that of Lord Dharma himself. The Court stated that this instance stated in the Mahaprasthanika Parva of the Mahabharata is another succinct example of the relation between dog and divinity in the textual sense.
The Court further stated that when it comes to Hindu iconography and mythology, dog finds a special place here as the vehicle of Kal Bhairava, a manifestation of Lord Shiva and idols of Bhairava on a black dog are worshipped by many sects especially within Tantric traditions. The Court emphasised that the dog is a symbol of loyalty, compassion, vigilance and protection and therefore, a perfect companion to divine power.
The Court further emphasised that the “Dashavatar” of Vishnu is a very well-known and integral part of how the Hindu religion assimilates and popularises a variety of cults over time. Four of the ten avatars of Lord Vishnu have been inspired by animals: Matsya (fish), Kuruma (tortoise), Varaha (boar), and Narasimha (half-lion). It shows how spirit does not discriminate between form, human or animal, according to Hindu philosophy.
Thus, acknowledging the absence of mens rea in the facts of the present case, and the belief that God is ubiquitous and omnipresent, and may exist in unconventional forms in nature depending on the perception of the devotee, the Court held that the petitioner did the act as an expression of affection and no malicious intent could be ascertained.
The Court fruther stated that Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution allowed the petitioner to express ideas even in symbolic ways that may include dressing up a pet subject to the restrictions of public order and morality which have not been violated in the case at hand and Article 25 of the Constitution protects her act of devotion or “bhakti” in this case.
Decision
The Court quoted “जाकी रही भावना जैसी, प्रभु मूरता देखि तिना जैसी” from Ramcharitramanas and stated that the said phrase “signifies that a person perceives the Divine, based on their own inner feelings, intentions, and mindset”.
Thus, the Court observed that individual expression of the petitioner, shaped by her personal experiences, could not be criminalised merely because it did not align with the sensitivities of others and in the absence of mens rea, criminal proceedings could not be initiated to validate subjective perceptions of hurt. The Court further stated that the constitutional tolerance must override hypersensitivity, which leads to innocent acts being construed as desecration.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition at hand and quashed the said FIR along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
[Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab, CRM-M No. 11112 of 2025 (O&M), decided on 1-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mitul Singh Rana
For the Respondent: Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab
