Agra, Nov 6: A criminal defamation complaint has been filed against religious preacher Dhirendra Krishna Shastri in an Agra court over his remarks about Lord Krishna, with the court registering the case and fixing December 14 for the next hearing. The complaint was filed by advocate Ajay Pratap Singh, who alleged that Shastri made derogatory remarks about Lord Krishna during a religious discourse, hurting the sentiments and social standing of the deity's descendants.
The complaint came up for preliminary hearing before Civil Judge Kanchan Kumari of the Agra Civil Court on Thursday. The court registered the case and scheduled the next hearing for December 14, setting in motion a legal process that will now examine whether Shastri's words, spoken during a public religious gathering, amount to criminal defamation under Indian law.
According to the complaint, Shastri made the remarks during a Ram Katha, a discourse on the life of Lord Ram, held in Karera in Madhya Pradesh's Shivpuri district on October 29. During the discourse, Shastri, who heads the Bageshwar Dham religious centre, drew a comparison between Lord Ram and Lord Krishna, discussing their respective postures and physical forms. He described Lord Ram as straight, upright and simple, while describing Lord Krishna as crooked and bent.
The complaint quotes Shastri as saying, "Those who follow Krishna might feel bad, but Krishna is very crooked. Even when he stands, he is bent at three places." He referred to Lord Krishna as Tribhanga, meaning bent at three distinct points, and commented on the curvature of his waist, the tilt of his neck, and the manner of playing the flute.
The complainant, advocate Ajay Pratap Singh, claims to be a descendant of Lord Krishna through his maternal lineage. Before the court, he presented the Mathura Gazetteer and the Report of a Tour in Eastern Rajputana in 1882-83, authored by Alexander Cunningham, the first director-general of the Archaeological Survey of India, in support of his claim of descent.
He argued that the remarks were derogatory and had hurt the religious sentiments of Lord Krishna's descendants, besides affecting their social standing.
The filing in Agra is the latest in a series of complaints that have followed Shastri's remarks. Members of the Samajwadi Party submitted a complaint on Tuesday to the Senior Superintendent of Police in Meerut, BBGTS Murthy, against Shastri over his alleged objectionable remarks about Lord Krishna and Lord Ram, seeking an impartial probe and legal action. The senior police officer has ordered an inquiry into the matter.
The complaint referred to Shastri's alleged comments on Lord Krishna's flute-playing and standing posture, as well as a separate alleged statement on Lord Ram.
Separately, the Yadav Samaj, or Yaduvanshi, Sangathan in Madhya Pradesh approached the police in Gwalior seeking the registration of a First Information Report against the spiritual leader. The organisation said the remarks had been made during a Katha held from October 30 to November 1, and claimed that Shastri had compared the two deities using terms such as small and big and crooked and straight, suggesting that Lord Krishna's actions were trivialised.
The group submitted a formal application to the Gwalior Superintendent of Police, requesting an investigation and the registration of an FIR.
The remarks have drawn significant backlash from the Yadav community, which traces its lineage to Lord Krishna and regards him as its ancestor and kuldevta, or family deity. Members of the community said the comments had caused deep hurt and demanded action.
SP Lohia Vahini district president Shashikant Gautam said Lord Krishna and Lord Ram are symbols of the faith of crores of people and of Indian culture, and that the police should examine the video in question and act according to the law if Shastri is found guilty.
Shastri has responded to the uproar. Addressing the controversy during a gathering in Chhatarpur, Madhya Pradesh, he said his remarks had been misinterpreted and clarified that his intention was not to create divisions between the two revered deities.
He expressed disappointment that his words had been taken out of context, and in a statement issued earlier, he apologised to anyone who was offended, saying his words had been uttered out of pure emotional devotion and were not intended to diminish or insult the deity.
The explanation has not ended the controversy. Despite Shastri's clarification, calls for punitive action have continued from various quarters, and the filing of the defamation case in Agra means the matter will now be tested in court. The case raises questions that go beyond the immediate dispute, touching on the boundaries of religious speech, the scope of defamation law, and the sensitivity of remarks about deities in a country where religious feelings run deep.
Criminal defamation in India is governed by provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which replaced the Indian Penal Code. A defamation complaint of this kind must establish that the accused made a statement intended to harm the reputation of a person, or in this case, of a community that claims descent from a deity.
Courts have in the past taken different views on whether remarks about religious figures can amount to defamation of their devotees or descendants, and the Agra court's handling of the case will be watched for the approach it takes.
The case also comes at a time when Shastri, the head of Bageshwar Dham in Chhatarpur district, has become one of India's most prominent and controversial religious figures. His large gatherings draw lakhs of devotees, and his statements on religious and social issues are widely reported and debated. That prominence means his words carry weight, and it also means that controversy follows him more readily than it would a lesser-known preacher.
For the complainant, the case is about more than one speech. By presenting historical documents before the court and asserting a line of descent from Lord Krishna, Singh has framed the complaint as a matter of family honour as well as religious sentiment. He argues that the remarks affected the social standing of Krishna's descendants, a claim that, if accepted, would broaden the scope of who can claim to be harmed by remarks about a deity.
Legal experts note that the preliminary hearing and registration of the case are only the first steps. The court will now examine the complaint, the evidence presented, and the legal basis for the claim before deciding how the case proceeds. The December 14 hearing will be the next milestone, and until then, both sides will prepare their arguments.
Shastri has not yet publicly responded to the filing of the case itself, though his earlier apology and clarification remain on record.
The controversy has also played out in the political arena. The Samajwadi Party's involvement in Meerut, and the Yadav community's mobilisation in Madhya Pradesh, reflect the political sensitivity of the issue. The Yadav community is a significant political constituency in several states, and parties are attentive to its concerns.
The Gwalior police application and the Meerut complaint show that the matter is being pursued on multiple fronts, through both the courts and the police.
For now, the facts are clear. A complaint has been filed, a court has registered it, and a date has been fixed. What remains to be seen is whether the case will proceed to trial, whether the court will find that Shastri's remarks amount to criminal defamation, and whether the controversy will fade or continue to grow.
The December 14 hearing will be the first indication of the direction the case will take, and it will be watched closely by devotees, lawyers and political observers alike.
The episode is a reminder of how quickly a remark made in a religious gathering can become a legal and political controversy in India. A comparison between two deities, intended by the speaker as a devotional observation, has been received by others as an insult, and the disagreement is now before a court. Whatever the outcome, the case will add to the ongoing debate about where the line falls between religious expression and speech that the law can punish.
(Reporting based on NDTV, The Times of India and ETV Bharat.)