High Court Quashes FIR for Dressing Dog as Lord Krishna
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a woman for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by dressing her pet dog as Lord Krishna on Janmashtami and posting its photographs as her WhatsApp status. Justice Subhas Mehla ruled that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) were not attracted, observing that the petitioner's act was an expression of affection and devotion, undertaken in good faith and without any malicious intent.
Background of the Case
The FIR was registered at Talwara police station in Hoshiarpur district on September 3, 2024, under Section 298 of the BNS. It was alleged that the petitioner had hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community by dressing her pet dog in a yellow cloth, crown and other ornaments, thereby portraying it as Lord Krishna, and posting its photographs as her WhatsApp status. The complaint was lodged by a private individual, who was a youth leader of a political party.
Petitioner's Defence
During investigation, the petitioner stated that she had dressed up her pet dog as Lord Krishna and uploaded the photographs purely as an expression of her love for the animal, whom she treated as her child as she remained issueless even after six years of marriage. Her counsel contended that the ingredients of Section 298 BNS were not satisfied and that the proceedings had been initiated at the instance of "a hyper-sensitive person", as such an act would not hurt the sensibilities of "an ordinary prudent person who is a member of the society".
Court's Reasoning Based on Hindu Scriptures
Examining whether the petitioner's conduct satisfied the ingredients of Section 298 BNS, Justice Mehla observed: "The gesture made by the petitioner by dressing up her pet in the customary attire of Janamashtami 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." Justice Mehla added: "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'."
The court devoted a substantial part of its reasoning to Hindu philosophy and scriptures. Justice Mehla referred to Chapter 5, Verse 18 of the Bhagavad Gita, which states that a sage sees with equal vision a learned brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog, and an outcast. Drawing from this, the court observed: "As we know that the 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 (Atman) resides in both, then seeing Krishna in a dog is not sacrilege — it is a realization of divine truth."
The Bench also referred to the Mahabharata, particularly the episode in the Mahaprasthanika Parva, where Yudhishthira refuses to abandon a stray dog while ascending to heaven, only for the dog to reveal itself as Lord Dharma. Justice Mehla noted that Hindu iconography accords a special place to dogs as the vehicle of Kal Bhairava.
Bhakti Yoga and Constitutional Rights
Referring to the petitioner's act, the court observed: "On Janmashtami, the lady's heart was focused on Krishna. So, by dressing her dog — which she considers and loves as her own child — the petitioner is practising Bhakti Yoga. For Krishna, the 'purity' of the cloth or the species of the wearer is secondary to the purity of the devotee's emotion." The Bench also discussed Saint Kabir's teachings and referenced ancient Egyptian civilisation, Japan's Shinto tradition and indigenous American cultures to underline that several religious traditions have historically associated animals with the divine.
Turning to the constitutional position, the High Court held that Article 19(1)(a) guaranteed the petitioner the right to freedom of expression, observing that "the petitioner is allowed to express ideas even in symbolic ways that may include dressing up a pet", subject to restrictions of public order and morality, which were not attracted in the present case. It further held that Article 25 protected her freedom of conscience and religious devotion.
Justice Mehla added: "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."
Final Order
Allowing the petition, the High Court quashed the FIR registered on September 3, 2024, and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom.
