Overview
- A High Court bench led by Justice Subhas Mehla set aside an FIR and the final police report after a private complaint accused a woman of hurting religious sentiments by dressing her pet dog in Janmashtami attire and posting the image on WhatsApp.
- The court found the prosecution did not plead or prove the two core elements of Section 298 of the BNS by showing both defilement of a sacred object or place and a deliberate intent to insult religion.
- In interpreting Section 298 the bench read the word 'object' ejusdem generis with 'place of worship' and said the provision will not normally reach private acts that do not involve a worship site or religious procession.
- Justice Mehla cited Hindu scriptures and iconography, including passages from the Bhagavad Gita and episodes in the Mahabharata, to explain that seeing divinity in a dog can be a legitimate form of devotion rather than sacrilege.
- The order affirms constitutional protections for symbolic religious expression under Articles 19(1)(a) and 25 and may serve as persuasive guidance in future cases where social media posts of private devotional acts prompt criminal complaints.