The Indian Deity: How Law Treats It As A Juristic Person With Perpetual Minority?

In our country, generations have believed in the righteousness of Lord Ram, Allah, playfulness of Lord Krishna, brevity of the Gurus and warmth of Jesus Christ. Religious diversity in India provide a wonderful kaleidoscope of the country's rich social composition, as many religions have originated in the country and few religions of foreign origin have also flourished here. It is not astonishing to know that it is these religions with which Indians associate themselves when it comes to identity crises. Hence, in a nation where deity worship is not only supreme but an identity for the individuals, it is really important to understand position of these divinities in Indian law. Way back in 1925, the Privy Council in the case of Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick observed, 'A Hindu idol is, according to long-established authority, founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by courts of law, a 'juristic entity'. It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being sued.' This brings us to a very important question as to what is a 'juristic person'? Is it same as a natural person like the human beings? Although established long back, a clear and elaborate definition of 'juristic person' is available in the Apex Court decision of 2000, connoting recognition of an entity to be in law a person which otherwise it is not. It was further stated that these are artificially created persons as it is inevitable to have them in this socio-political-scientific development evolution. This judgment also reiterated what was held way back in 1969 in Yogendra Nath Naskar v. CIT, that it is not all idols that will qualify for being 'juristic person' but only when it is consecrated and installed at a public place for the public at large. Moreover, Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Bhupati v. Ramlal [10 CLJ 355 at 369] said that it would be quite consistent with sound principles of jurisprudence to say that a material object which represents or symbolises a particular purpose can be given the status of a legal person, and regarded as owner of the property which is dedicated to it. In a Hindu religious endowment, the entire ownership of the dedicated property is transferred to the deity or the institution itself as a juristic person and the shebait or mahant is a mere manager.Who is the real beneficiary of an endowment in favour of a deity? Although it is now undisputed that deity is a 'juristic person', it is germane to understand as to who will be the beneficiary. In Sanskrit texts (Bhashya on the Purva Mimamsa, Adhyaya 9, Pada I, Sahara Swami), it is written that the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha) (Mentioned in a 1969 SC judgment). If the owners of the property are owners in figurative sense and not the beneficiaries, then who are? In 1995, the Supreme Court in Bala Shankar Maha Shanker Bhattjee clarified that is the worshippers who are the beneficiaries. Dedication by these worshippers may be made orally or can be inferred from the conduct or from a given set of facts and circumstances. The right of the public to worship in the temple is a matter of inference and need not be proved by some document to evidence dedication. But if the property is dedicated to the working of family idol, it may become the private endowment, however, the property will belong to and will be owned by the deity. Beneficiaries may now be limited. [Ram Lal v. Board of Revenue (1990) 1 RLR 161] To illustrate the same, in Masjid Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurudwira Parbandhak Committee, the Bombay High Court held that the procedure of our Courts allows for a suit in the name of an idol or deity though the right of suit is really in the shebait. It is only in ideal sense that that idols are recognized as judicial persons, but strictly speaking, the law of the present age at least does not concern itself with anything outside human interest and all the recognitions and protections accorded to the idol must have been thought necessary because of the existence of some ultimate human interests. Relevant in this context is the Calcutta High Court judgment of Tarit Bhusan Ray which emphasized that the real material interest of these properties lies with the human beings. Also, concluding from the above mentioned judgments and the texts which were relied thereupon, it is undisputed that the beneficiary is not the deity but its worshippers.Perpetual minority of the deity Although the legal position of the deity is well settled, some complexities still arise with respect to 'perpetual minority' status of these divinities, i.e., the deity will remain a minor forever. Again the aforementioned 1925 case of Privy Council held that "its (idols') interests are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and...

The Indian Deity: How Law Treats It As A Juristic Person With Perpetual Minority?

Kratika Indurkhya

Tags