Dressing Dog as Krishna Not an Offence Under Section 298 BNS

Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Subhas Mehla of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and Another (2026), quashed an FIR registered against a woman for allegedly hurting religious sentiments by dressing her pet dog as Lord Krishna, holding that the act did not attract the ingredients of Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. 

What was the Background of Ranjanni Gaur v. State of Punjab and Another (2026) Case? 

• The Petitioner, a bank manager, had shared a WhatsApp status featuring her pet dog dressed in attire associated with Lord Krishna, on the occasion of Janmashtami. 
• A complaint was filed by a local youth leader affiliated with the Shiv Sena, alleging that the act insulted the Hindu community and amounted to desecration under Section 298 BNS. 
• The Petitioner contended that the act was a private expression of affection towards her pet, shared on a limited-access platform, and that she herself being a Hindu could not be attributed with an intention to insult her own faith. 
• The State opposed the plea, contending that the act of dressing an animal as a deity was inherently offensive, and that the Petitioner's admission of the act during investigation confirmed the transgression irrespective of her stated intent. 
• The matter came up before the Punjab and Haryana High Court in a petition seeking quashing of the FIR.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the essential ingredient of intent: The Court held that individual expression shaped by personal experience cannot be criminalised merely because it does not align with the sensitivities of others. 
• On the meaning of "sacred object": The Court observed that the term "object" under Section 298 BNS must be read ejusdem generis with "place of worship," and that items such as a cloth, crown, or ornaments used privately could not be classified as sacred objects outside a formal religious space or procession. 
• On the applicable standard for offence: The Court applied the Community Standard Test laid down in Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal, declining to apply the older Hicklin test which rested on hypersensitivity rather than an objective community standard. 
• On constitutional tolerance: The Court held that constitutional tolerance must prevail over hypersensitivity, and that innocent acts should not be construed as desecration merely because they offend individual sensibilities. 
• On the absence of mens rea: The Court held that criminal liability cannot rest on subjective hypersensitivity or idiosyncratic perceptions of offence, since permitting this would make the threshold for prosecution dependent on varying individual sensibilities. 
• On relief granted: The Court quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, cautioning against the frivolous invocation of criminal statutes for personal or political ends. 

What is Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? 

Section 298 BNS – Injuring or Defiling Place of Worship with Intent to Insult the Religion of Any Class: 

• Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons, or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 

Classification: 

• Punishment: Imprisonment for a term up to 2 years, or fine, or both 
• Cognizable 
• Non-Bailable 
• Triable by: Any Magistrate