The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and another, has quashed an FIR against a woman who dressed her pet dog as Lord Krishna for Janmashtami and shared its photograph on WhatsApp.
Justice Subhas Mehla held that the conduct did not satisfy the essential requirements of Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The provision deals with damaging, destroying or defiling a place of worship or a sacred object with the intention of insulting a religion.
The case arose from a complaint alleging that the woman had hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. During the investigation, she explained that she was issueless, treated her pet as her child and had dressed it in festive attire purely out of love and devotion.
The Court found no act of desecration and no deliberate intention to insult any religion. It observed that criminal law cannot be used merely because an innocent form of expression does not match the personal sensitivities of others.
The Court said, “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.”
Explaining Section 298, the Court said the word “object” must be understood in connection with a place of worship. It would generally cover a sacred object located at a religious place or carried during a religious procession.
The attire worn by the pet could not be treated as an object falling within the provision. The act was performed in good faith during Janmashtami and the WhatsApp post appeared to reflect affection rather than malice.
The Court also rejected the assumption that associating a dog with divinity was necessarily disrespectful. Referring to the Bhagavad Gita, it observed that the same divine soul exists in all living beings.
It further referred to the Mahabharata account in which Yudhishthira refused to abandon a loyal dog while entering heaven. The dog was later revealed to be Lord Dharma, showing the connection between loyalty, compassion and divinity.
The judgement also noted that dogs hold an important place in Hindu traditions. A dog is associated with Kal Bhairava, while Lord Dattatreya is often depicted with four dogs representing the four Vedas.
According to the Court, devotion can take different forms. Dressing the pet as Baby Krishna was comparable to the customary practice of dressing children as Krishna during Janmashtami, especially because the woman regarded the animal as her child.
The Court held that Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution protected her symbolic expression and personal act of devotion. Since neither malicious intent nor religious desecration was established, the FIR and related proceedings were quashed.
——————————————–
Have a case update, article, or deal to share? Courtroom Today welcomes contributions from lawyers, law firms, and legal professionals. Write to contact@courtroomtoday.com
