Seeing Lord Krishna in dog not sacrilege: Court cites Bhagvad Gita, quashes FIR

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR against a woman accused of hurting Hindu religious sentiments by dressing her pet dog as Lord Krishna and sharing its photograph on WhatsApp, holding that criminal law cannot be invoked merely because some individuals perceive an act as offensive in the absence of deliberate intent.

Justice Subhas Mehla set aside the FIR registered under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), observing that the essential ingredient of *mens rea*, or criminal intent, was absent. The court said "constitutional tolerance must override hypersensitivity" and ruled that criminal liability cannot be based on subjective perceptions of offence.

The case arose from a complaint filed by a Shiv Sena youth leader, who alleged that the woman's Janmashtami WhatsApp status, showing her pet dog dressed as Lord Krishna, had hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community.

During the investigation, the woman, a bank manager, told police that she and her husband had remained childless for six years and considered the pet as their own child. She said dressing the dog in festive attire during Janmashtami was an expression of affection and devotion, with no intention of insulting or disrespecting religious beliefs.

Allowing her plea, the High Court held that the act appeared to have been carried out in good faith and without malice.

'THE INTENTION WAS OUT OF LOVE'

"The posting of the photo on WhatsApp appears to be out of an intention of love and for showcasing her affection," the court observed. It added that criminal prosecution could not be sustained simply because some individuals viewed the act as offensive.

The Bench further remarked that the perception of the dog as an "impure" creation was inconsistent with Hindu philosophy and mythology. Referring to Hindu iconography, the court noted that dogs occupy an important place in religious traditions. It observed that the dog is regarded as the vehicle of Kal Bhairava, a manifestation of Lord Shiva, while Lord Dattatreya is often depicted alongside four dogs symbolising the four Vedas.

The court also relied on the Bhagavad Gita, the Mahabharata, the Upanishads and Bhakti philosophy to underline that Hindu thought recognises divinity in all living beings. It concluded that the petitioner's actions reflected devotion rather than desecration.

The woman had argued that the decorative accessories used on the pet were not "objects held sacred" under Section 298 of the BNS and that the image was shared only as a WhatsApp status without any intention to insult religion. She also claimed the criminal proceedings were politically motivated.

Accepting her submissions, the High Court held that her actions were protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution, which guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of conscience and religion. The court ruled that personal expressions of faith and affection cannot be criminalised solely because they do not align with the sensitivities of others, and formally quashed the FIR.

- Ends