Dog Is A Perfect Companion To Divine Power: Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman Displaying Pet Dog Dressed As Lord Krishna On Whatsapp Status
The Court held that the petitioner lacked the requisite mens rea under Section 298 BNS, and said that dogs represent the four Vedas, which imply very poignantly that sacred knowledge is present even in what society might falsely deem ‘lowly’.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an FIR registered under Section 298 BNS against a woman accused of hurting Hindu religious sentiments by dressing her pet dog as Lord Krishna and posting its photograph as her WhatsApp status on Janmashtami. Holding that constitutional tolerance must prevail over subjective hypersensitivity, the Court found that the petitioner acted out of affection and devotion, without any deliberate or malicious intention to insult religion.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by a Shiv Sena youth leader alleging that the petitioner had hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community by portraying her pet dog as Lord Krishna. During investigation, the petitioner stated that she had remained childless even after six years of marriage, treated the dog as her own child, and had no knowledge that posting the photograph would hurt anyone's religious sentiments.
Justice Subhas 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. 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’…Hence, 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”.
“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. Idols of Bhairava on a black dog are worshipped by many sects especially within Tantric traditions. It is stressed here that the dog is a symbol of loyalty, compassion, vigilance and protection and therefore a perfect companion to divine power. Lord Dattatreya is also often depicted with four dogs surrounding him. These dogs represent the four Vedas. This might imply very poignantly that sacred knowledge is present even in what society might falsely deem ‘lowly’”, the Bench categorically said.
Advocate Mitul Singh Rana appeared for the petitioner and Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G. appeared for the respondent.
“Hence, 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”, it observed further.
The petitioner, a bank manager, was booked under Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) after she dressed her pet dog as Lord Krishna by adorning it with a crown, peacock feather, yellow cloth and ornaments, and uploaded its photograph as her WhatsApp status on Janmashtami.
She had argued that no offence under Section 298 BNS was made out as the articles used to dress the dog were not "objects held sacred" under the provision. She submitted that she dressed her pet as Lord Krishna purely out of affection, having treated it like her child after remaining issueless, without any intention to hurt religious sentiments. She also contended that the photograph was shared only as a WhatsApp status and that the prosecution was politically motivated.
The Bench found that the petitioner had acted out of affection for her pet, whom she treated as her child, and there was no deliberate or malicious intention to insult religion. It further held that her conduct constituted a form of personal expression protected under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 of the Constitution of India.
The Court also relied upon the Bhagavad Gita, Mahabharata, Upanishads and Bhakti philosophy to explain that Hindu philosophy recognises divinity in all living beings and that the petitioner's act reflected devotion rather than desecration.
“…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 is not only the difference in the potential harm they cause to humans but also the difference in their appearances that affects our perception towards them”, the Court said.
“Firstly, Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution guarantees the petitioner the right to freedom of expression - the petitioner is allowed to express ideas even in symbolic ways that may include dressing up a pet - subject to the restrictions of public order and morality (which we have already addressed that it does not violate in this case). Secondly, Article 25 guarantees the freedom of conscience and religion which protects her act of devotion or ‘bhakti’ in this case”, the Bench further noted.
Cause Title: Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and another (Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:088828)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mitul Singh Rana, Advocate.
Respondent: Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G.