The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against a woman accused of hurting religious sentiments by dressing up her pet dog as Lord Krishna on Janmashtami and posting its photograph as her WhatsApp status [Ranjanni Gaur v State of Punjab & Anr.].

Justice Subhas Mehla in the July 1 order held that the woman's actions lacked criminal intent.

The Court observed that neither the act of dressing the dog in Krishna attire nor sharing the image on WhatsApp amounted to desecration of a sacred object or reflected any intention to insult religion. It noted that the accused, who had remained childless for six years after marriage, treated the dog as her own child and had acted out of affection rather than malice.

"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," said the Court.

The FIR against the woman was registered on a complaint by a Shiv Sena youth leader, who alleged that the accused's WhatsApp status depicting her dog dressed as Lord Krishna on Janmashtami had hurt the sentiments of the Hindu community.

During the investigation, the woman admitted posting the photograph but stated that she had not realised it could offend anyone. She contended that she had simply celebrated the festival by dressing her pet as she would a child.

After examining Section 298 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Court held that the provision applies only where a place of worship or an object held sacred is destroyed, damaged or defiled with the requisite intention or knowledge. It found that the yellow cloth, crown and ornaments used to dress the dog were not sacred objects within the meaning of the law.

"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 practicing 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," commented the Court.

The Court, therefore concluded that the basic ingredients of the offence were absent.

On the requirement of criminal intent, the Court cautioned against allowing prosecutions to proceed merely because a few individuals claim to be offended. Referring to the Supreme Court's "community standards" test, the Court said,

"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."

The Court also devoted considerable discussion to Hindu philosophy and mythology, referring to the Bhagavad Gita, the Mahabharata, Bhakti traditions and the depiction of animals in Hindu iconography.

Additionally, the Court referred to the concept of anthropomorphization, or attributing human characteristics, emotions or intentions to animals, objects or natural phenomena. It noted that the concept is deeply rooted in Indian mythology through deities such as Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesha, Lord Garuda and Lord Nandi.

"This Anthropomorphization is prominent in Indian mythology as illustrated by the extreme popularity of Lord Hanuman, Lord Ganesha, Lord Garuda, Lord Nandi and so on whose physical appearance stems directly from the animal kingdom. At this juncture, we must also clearly state what we mean by anthropomorphization. It is ‘the act of attributing human characteristics, emotions, intentions or behaviour to non-human entities like animals, objects, or natural phenomena’," the Court said.

The petitioner in this case has subjected her pet dog to this phenomenon out of love, not with any intention to insult religious beliefs, the Court emphasised.

"The gesture made by the petitioner by dressing up her pet in the customary attire of Janmashtami 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'," observed the Court.

Holding that the prosecution amounted to an abuse of the criminal process, the High Court quashed the FIR, the chargesheet and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner.

Advocate Mitul Singh Rana appeared for the petitioner.

Additional Advocate General Subhash Godara represented the State of Punjab.

[Read Order]