Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna

"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," Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a landmark ruling, held that dressing up a pet animal in religious attire out of personal affection and devotion does not constitute an offence of hurting religious sentiments.

A bench of Justice Subhas Mehla, while quashing an FIR registered under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), observed that criminal liability cannot be founded upon subjective hypersensitivity or idiosyncratic perceptions of offence, especially when the act is rooted in the philosophical realization of the omnipresence of the Divine.

The petitioner, a bank manager who had remained issueless after six years of marriage, dressed her pet dog as Lord Krishna on the occasion of Janmashtami and posted the photograph as her WhatsApp status. Based on a complaint by a youth leader of a political outfit alleging that the act hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community, the police registered an FIR at Talwara Police Station, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner moved the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR and the subsequent final report, contending that the act was a bona fide expression of her personal faith and affection for her pet.

The primary question before the Court was whether dressing a pet dog as a deity and sharing the image on a restricted social media status satisfies the essential ingredients of actus reus and mens rea under Section 298 of the BNS. The Court was also called upon to determine if such an act would outrage the religious feelings of an ordinary, reasonable member of the community or if it merely offended the subjective hypersensitivity of the complainant.

Scope Of 'Object' Under Section 298 BNS Interpreted Ejusdem Generis

The Court first examined the actus reus required under Section 298 of the BNS, which involves the destruction, damage, or defilement of a place of worship or an "object" held sacred. Relying on precedents like Queen Empress v. Imam Ali and S. Veerabhadran Chettiar v. Ramaswami Naicker, the bench noted that the term 'object' must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the term 'place of worship'.

The Court observed that the yellow cloth, crown, and ornaments used by the petitioner to dress the dog are not, in themselves, objects held sacred by the community in a vacuum. It held that unless an object is within a place of worship or carried in a religious procession, Section 298 of the BNS would not typically apply to its use in a private, personal context.

"The 'object' which the petitioner made her pet dog wear, cannot be interpreted as 'object' within the meaning of Section 298 of BNS."

Application Of The 'Community Standard Test' Over 'Hicklin Test'

Regarding the requirement of mens rea, the Court emphasized that for an offence to be made out, there must be a deliberate intention to insult a religion. Justice Mehla referred to the shift in Indian jurisprudence from the 'Hicklin Test' to the 'Community Standard Test' as established in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal. The Court noted that obscenity or insult must be judged from the viewpoint of an average, reasonable person and not from the perspective of the most sensitive or impressionable minds.

The bench remarked that the petitioner, being a member of the Hindu community herself, could not be said to have a malicious intent to insult her own faith. It found that the prosecution was founded upon "misplaced religious hypersensitivity" rather than the objective legal standard contemplated by the legislature.

"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."

Divinity In All Living Beings: Philosophical Roots Of The Act

In a profound theological analysis, the Court drew attention to Shloka 18, Chapter 5 of the Bhagavad Gita, where Lord Krishna describes a sage as one who sees no difference between a learned priest and a dog. The bench observed that in Hindu philosophy, particularly Advaita Vedanta, the same cosmic energy or 'Atman' resides in all animate and inanimate things.

The Court further cited the Mahaprasthanika Parva of the Mahabharata, where a dog accompanied Yudhishthira to the gates of heaven and was revealed to be Lord Dharma. It also noted that in Hindu iconography, the dog is the vehicle of Kal Bhairava and represents the four Vedas when associated with Lord Dattatreya. Consequently, the Court found that visualizing the Divine in an animal is an established spiritual practice.

"For Krishna, the ‘purity’ of the cloth or the species of the wearer is secondary to the purity of the devotee’s emotion."

Constitutional Protection Of Personal Expression And Devotion

The Court held that the petitioner’s act was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, which guarantees freedom of expression, including symbolic expressions of love. Furthermore, Article 25 protects the freedom of conscience and the right to practice one's religion, which includes individual acts of 'Bhakti' or devotion.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Priya Prakash Varrier v. State of Telangana, the bench reiterated that unwitting or careless acts without malicious intent do not attract criminal provisions related to religious insults. The Court warned against the frivolous filing of cases over matters of personal choice that do not disturb public order.

"Constitutional tolerance must override hypersensitivity which leads innocent acts to be construed as desecration."

The High Court concluded that the FIR was an abuse of the process of law and fell within the categories for quashing established in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. The bench found that the petitioner’s gesture was done in good faith, as she treated her pet dog as her own child due to being issueless. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.

Date of Decision: 01 July 2026