Hindu sentiments outraged; non-vegetarian restaurant’s banner depicts Lord Ganesha cooking and eating chicken biryani ahead of Ganesh Chaturthi festival
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India 
12 September, 2026
Case Summary
In Tirunelveli city, Tamil Nadu, a derogatory promotional banner featuring Lord Ganesha cooking and eating meat was displayed by a non-vegetarian restaurant near the V.M. Chathiram Bridge. The banner was put up in connection with a special food promotion just days before the Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations. The restaurant displayed a banner advertising “Arabic-style Chicken 65 Biryani” for ₹99, with the special offer valid on 13 September 2026 and 14 September 2026. The exact date on which the banner was put up was not specified in reports, but the incident occurred just before the Ganesh Chaturthi celebrations on 14 September 2026. The banner, placed in front of the shop, featured an image of Lord Ganesha cooking and eating chicken biryani. The use of the Hindu deity in connection with a non-vegetarian food promotion sparked objections from Hindus and Hindu organisations. Office-bearers, members and cadres of the Hindu Munnani, along with local residents, gathered outside the restaurant and demanded the immediate removal of the banner, stating that the depiction was offensive and hurt Hindu religious sentiments. The protest caused a brief commotion in the area. Tirunelveli City Police reached the spot and removed the large banner. A video showed a police officer climbing onto the reception counter to take it down. The police assured Hindu Munnani representatives that appropriate action would be taken against the owner and warned him against advertisements that could hurt religious sentiments. Following the incident, R. Selvaraj, 42, of Narasinganallur, lodged a complaint at the Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital Police Station. He stated that the depiction of Lord Ganesha in connection with biryani insulted the Hindu deity and hurt Hindu religious sentiments. The complaint also stated that the banner had been displayed with the intention of insulting a deity worshipped by Hindus. Police registered a case based on the complaint and arrested the restaurant owner, M. Jayanth, 30, son of Murugaiah and a resident of KTC Nagar, on 13 September 2026. The investigation examined the preparation and display of the banner, including the purpose behind using Lord Ganesha’s image in the advertisement. Notably, the portrayal of Hindu deities in a derogatory manner during Hindu festivals had occurred previously, with a similar pattern seen during the Vishu celebrations in April 2026. During that period, the Hinduphobia Tracker documented five separate incidents in which Lord Krishna was depicted in promotional material for non-vegetarian food. These included a Vishu poster by My Raydan Restaurant in Malappuram, Nadawi Mandi in Bengaluru, Meher Mandi and Grills in Cherthala, Yamama Shawaya Hotel near Poradam Bridge in Malappuram, and Arabian Majlis Restaurant in Malappuram. The posters depicted Lord Krishna eating, serving or being shown with meat-based dishes, including chicken, biryani and kuzhi mandi.
Why it is Hate Crime ?
The primary category selected in this case is: Attack on Hindu religious representation. Within this, the first subcategory selected is: Desecration of Hindu religious symbol. Icons and symbols, or religious representations of a spiritual ideal, are widely revered in Hinduism. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of most significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are done. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika, for example. Since these Hindu religious symbols hold paramount importance in Hinduism, any desecration of symbols, icons, murtis, religious representations and manifestations is driven by animosity towards the faith itself, which manifests itself through these murtis, icons and symbols. Therefore, any desecration of these Hindu religious symbols and representations is considered religiously motivated hate crimes under this category. The other subcategory selected is: Iconoclastic representation of Hindu Gods/Goddesses. An icon is a symbol of someone or something that is revered, or a religious representation of a spiritual ideal. Iconography is of vital significance in the Hindu milieu. It helps connect people’s spiritual beliefs with the real world. Iconography within the Hindu faith takes several shapes and forms. Murtis are of most significance to Hindus, to which daily rituals, prayers and offerings are done. Besides the murtis, there are several other symbols which have deep significance in the Hindu faith – the Om and Swastika, for example. Any iconoclastic representation of these symbols, images and murtis is an affront to the religious beliefs and faith of the Hindu community itself since the symbols and icons are deeply religious in nature. In this sub-category of crime, we would record hate crimes and iconoclastic representations, in words, art, or any other form of representation of symbols that hold religious significance for the Hindu community. Since these symbols, icons and murtis are central to the Hindu faith, any iconoclastic representation of these symbols is born out of animosity towards the faith itself, manifesting itself through these symbols; therefore, these representations would be considered religiously motivated hate crimes. This case was a clear example of a religiously driven hate crime because the restaurant used a derogatory portrayal of Lord Ganesha to promote the sale of chicken biryani, depicting the revered Hindu deity cooking and eating meat. By directly associating Lord Ganesha with the preparation and consumption of chicken for a commercial food promotion, the restaurant subjected a sacred Hindu figure to a degrading portrayal that hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community. Lord Ganesha is one of the most revered deities in Hinduism and is worshipped as the remover of obstacles, the deity of wisdom and auspicious beginnings. Ganesh Chaturthi is a major Hindu festival dedicated to his worship, during which devotees install his murti, perform puja and seek his blessings. Hindu religious traditions place great importance on maintaining the sanctity of deities and sacred spaces, with meat and alcohol generally regarded as impure within mainstream Hindu ritual contexts, particularly in temples and during devotional worship. Against this backdrop, deliberately portraying Lord Ganesha cooking and eating chicken biryani, and thereby associating a revered Hindu deity with the consumption of something regarded as impure, amounted to the desecration of a sacred Hindu symbol. The portrayal also amounted to an iconoclastic distortion of Lord Ganesha's traditional iconography, in which he is represented through sacred forms associated with his divine attributes, worship and auspiciousness, rather than as a figure cooking and consuming meat. The restaurant's deliberate alteration of this traditional representation and its placement of Lord Ganesha in such a profane context demonstrated hostility towards Hindu religious beliefs and the Hindu community, making the incident a clear case of a religiously driven hate crime. The use of Lord Ganesha to advertise a chicken biryani offer further demonstrated the commercial exploitation of a revered Hindu deity. Instead of being represented in a manner befitting his religious status, Lord Ganesha was turned into a promotional character to attract customers and sell a meat-based food product. This reduced a sacred figure of worship to an advertising device and trivialised the profound religious reverence attached to him among Hindu devotees. By using the image of a revered deity as a marketing tool for commercial gain, the restaurant undermined the religious significance of Lord Ganesha and treated a sacred Hindu symbol as ordinary promotional material. Such commercial exploitation of a revered Hindu deity hurt the religious sentiments of the Hindu community and demonstrated a blatant disregard for the sanctity accorded to Hindu religious figures. The timing of the incident further aggravated its religious nature. The banner was displayed immediately ahead of Ganesh Chaturthi, a revered Hindu festival centred on the worship of Lord Ganesha. Just as Hindu devotees were preparing to celebrate the deity through religious rituals and festivities, Lord Ganesha was subjected to a derogatory portrayal in which he was shown cooking and eating chicken biryani for a commercial promotion. The placement of such imagery immediately before the festival made the act particularly offensive to Hindu devotees and demonstrated a deliberate disregard for Hindu religious sentiments at a time of heightened religious observance. The timing therefore intensified the harm caused to the Hindu community and further established the incident as a religiously driven hate crime. Furthermore, the Hinduphobia Tracker had previously documented a similar pattern during the Vishu celebrations in April 2026, when five separate incidents involved Lord Krishna being depicted in promotional material for non-vegetarian food. The recurrence of Hindu deities being portrayed alongside meat-based food during Hindu festivals demonstrated that this was not merely an ordinary or isolated commercial advertisement, but part of a broader pattern in which Hindu traditions and religious figures were denigrated through inappropriate and derogatory representations. The repeated use of revered Hindu deities to promote meat-based food, particularly during Hindu festivals, demonstrated deep-seated hostility towards Hinduism and the Hindu community and further established the religiously motivated nature of the incident. Since this case met the parameters of a religiously driven hate crime, it was added to the hate crime database of the Hinduphobia Tracker.
Case Status
Arrested
Perpetrators Details
Perpetrators
Others
Perpetrators Range
One Person
Perpetrators Gender
male
Sources 
