- Abstract
The idea of regarding idols as juristic persons has its origin in the law of England. Accordingly, the idols we daily worship and also see are entitled to rights and some duties and are eligible as juristic persons with responsibilities, which the law also recognizes. By being a juristic person, an idol has acquired many different facets of rights such as developing property, separate entity, taxation, management, and right to sue or be sued which supports the idol’s entity in a different legal status from natural persons, who are bestowed with duties and rights in traditional religious mid society like India where the idol represents the physical presence of the Supreme Being. This research paper on the legal entity of idols concerning the Indian legal framework seeks to encompass the notion of idols as legal persons, its antecedence, background, aim and objective, and the ultimate challenging influence of this institution on the legal order.
Keywords: Legal Status of Idols, Background, Rights of a deity, Cases, Significance, Conclusion
- Introduction
In India, Idols are regarded as minors and the Shebait or priest is regarded as the guardian of the idol and discharges the responsibilities and also imposes the rights of the idol. Since we are aware that a legal or an artificial person is a product of the state but idols obtain the legitimacy of law as a legal person not only on account of the fact that the state proclaims it to be so but due to the fact that it commands confidence of a huge majority. A huge population has placed some of their beliefs on it and that makes the state to acknowledge it as a legal personality. It should be noted, however, that the juristic person of the idol is not the idol itself, and one discredited theory is that the image itself becomes a legal person at the moment it is consecrated.
- Research Methodology
While making of this research paper, I have used both open-ended and close-ended research methodologies including questionaries and interviews to gather common people’s opinion on this topic as well as the traditional research method. In the questionaries I have tried to put questions regarding the present scenario, recent cases highlighting this topic and situation-based questions to know about their opinion.
- Literature Review
In working on this research paper on this above-stated topic, I came across various articles, journals, videos, blogs, which were already made on this topic. While going through all those important research materials, I came across many important aspects and recent cases which highlighted the issue of legal status of idols, which helped me a lot in framing my research paper and provided a strong base for my research. The topic of legal status of idols has been well portrayed and presented by each of those valuable contents.
- Methodology
This paper primarily focuses on the concept of legal status of idols, makes a detailed analysis of the concept, its origin, background and its impact on the present judicial system. The paper uses both open-ended and close-ended research methodologies to gather relevant information related to the topic using questionaries and interview along with the traditional approach.
- Background / Origin
The idea of entertaining the idols as juristic persons first came to India during the British era with the famous Dakor Temple Case, The Bombay High Court was clear in 1887 that a “Hindu idol is a juristic person and the pious sentiment embodied in the idol is itself to be treated as a legal person.” The recognition of legal personality in Hindu idols in India had its genesis in the watershed case of Promatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick. In that context, Lord Shaw commented, with regard to more common acknowledgment of the juristic personhood, that a Hindu idol was a juristic person and had juristic status, or put another way, the idol could sue and be sued. The idol has its own personal will. The personal will of the idol is fulfilled by the guardian, who has been entrusted by that deity for the fulfilment of its will. Lord Shaw proceeded to note that we may call it a “will”, which is interpreted by the Shebait, who is the individual that gains that title either from the inheritance or upon being appointed. In the event of competing claims to that role of Shebait, the Court has the authority to appoint someone independent to decide what the idol wants in the way of competing interests. He concluded his observations by adding that the law would also be concerned with the interests of the worshippers of the idol.
- Purpose and Aims: The purpose and aim for granting legal status to idols can be listed below:
- Protection of Dedicated Property: To preserve properties and assets donated to religious activities from outside forces and inside mal-administration.
- Effectuation of Donor’s Pious Intention: To preserve and ensure the original pious or altruistic intention of the donor is maintained and executed even after the donor’s death or absence.
- Legal Certainty and Clarity: To ensure a clear legal environment regarding ownership, management, and litigation relating to temple properties.
- Facilitation of Legal Actions: For the purpose of allowing the idol to hold property, sue, be sued, and sue and be sued through its guardian or trustee.
- Recognition of Societal Values: For the identification and preservation of the religious and cultural sentiments of society by affording legal recognition to the symbol of the divine.
- Prevention of Misuse: To keep temple money and properties from being abused, misused, or diverted.
- Continuity Beyond Physical Existence: To provide that the legal personality and rights over endowed property persist even when the physical idol is destroyed or not present.
- State’s Role as Guardian: To enable the state (by way of the judiciary) to perform the role of parens patriae to safeguard the idol’s and its worshippers’ rights.
- Harmonization of Customary and Statutory Law: For filling the gap between the religious established practices and the legal system in place.
- Rights of a deity
Conferment of legal status on idols and making them a juristic person gives them certain rights just like any other fictional or legal person defined by the law. Those rights are listed below:
a) Ownership of Property: The proprietary rights and wealth thus accruing to the temple; belong to the god itself. It keeps priests and other trustees from milking property and playing games with money. The Apex Court in the case of Sri Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi v. State of UP [1997 SSC 606] held that the endowment properties vest in the deity, Lord Sri Vishwanath and the priests are not entitled to exclusively manage the temple in the name of the deity. Temple administration by Mahant, Pandas, Archakas did not mean it becomes theirs.
b) Paying Taxes: This, to some extent, was after independence. In 1969, it was held by the Supreme Court that if gods were human beings they could pay income tax.
c) To sue: God being a human being can sue in a court of law. this was held in the celebrated Ayodhya Ram Temple Case, where it is alleged that Lord Ram, himself was sued for his ownership rights on his trustee. Another similar case is the Pathur Nataraja statue case, where here this statue was originally in the custody of the Vishwanatha Swamy Temple at Pathur, Tamil Nadu, which was smuggled out of India and auctioned abroad. Once more, the court ruled according to the judgment that the property was owned by a Pathur Temple despite the fact that the idol was secretly removed. The Justice Kennedy’s opinion laid down the principle of law that “once a deity always a deity” affirming the juristic person status of the idol.
- Duties of a deity
When idols are granted legal status as juristic persons in India, there are particular specific duties and obligations that result thereto, which are subject to human agents such as Shebaits (temple administrators) or trustees. The principal duties can be listed as follows:
- Protection and Maintenance: The main responsibility is to protect the idol, keep it safe and in good condition and preserve it by religious customs including daily rituals, worship and regularly maintaining the varying aspects of the idol and its possessions.
- Administration of Property: Idols being legal persons, are legally entitled to property. The Shebait or the trustee manages the property consecrated to the idol and takes proper care that the property is used for the anticipated religious or pious purpose and protects it from being misappropriated or mismanaged.
- Enforcement of Rights: Enforcement of rights of the idol in law, e.g., right to sue or be sued with reference to property or interest of the idol.
- Fiduciary Duty: The Shebait also plays a fiduciary function in which they must act in the idol’s own interest and in the interest of the devotees and cannot allow for any conflict of interest or personal gain from the idol’s assets.
- Performance of Worship and Rituals: The Shebait must ensure that all rituals, ceremonies, and festivals are performed in their traditional way, fulfilling the religious obligations involved in the idol.
- Accountability: The Shebait is responsible to the devotees and sometimes even to courts, for the proper administration of the idol’s property and fulfilment of religious duties.
- Prevention of Degradation: Responsibilities further include preventing destruction, degradation, or misappropriation of the idol and associated property. Such responsibilities are laid to allow the idol to remain sacred, to maintain the pious realization of the donor’s desire, to protect the interests of devotees and religious group.
- Cases highlighting the issue of legal status of idols
- Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass and Others (2000): In Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee v. Som Nath Dass and Others (2000), The Apex Court noted that the expression juristic person per se connotes an acceptance in law of an entity to be a person which it is not otherwise. I.e., it is neither a natural person individual but an artificially created person which is to be held to be in law as such. Analogously, status is also conferred upon animals, companies, corporations, rivers, etc. by Courts. Evolution of an endowment led to evolution of an artificial legal person. A juridical person is formed on formation of an endowment for a pious or charitable cause. Where it has been endowed to an idol, the idol represents the legal person materialistically.
- Rambrahma v. Kedar Nath Banerjee: The Supreme Court’s decision of Mukerji J. in Rambrahma v. Kedar Nath Banerjeeinforms us about the reasons why an idol was granted juristic personality for law. The Court remarked that routine of daily life is lived through refinement of detail; the moving picture is dotted with necessaries and luxuries of life turn by turn, from oven to change of attire, the serving of cooked and raw viands, and the return to repose.
- Ayodhya Ram Mandir Case: During pronouncing Allahabad HC 2010 judgment in Ayodhya title case, Justice D V Sharma recalled that, just as there is a guardian given to minors, similarly in the case of an idol, an idol has a Shebait, managing, on behalf of the idol. Keeping the doctrine of legal personality intact, in 2019, the Supreme Court went on to say that Janmaasthan of Lord Ram is where Babri Mosque is located and held that the disputed property be given to the Hindu community in Ayodhya so that they can worship their god.
This landmark case considered the development of the concept of the juristic personality of an idol and its right of property. It also opined that Asthan Shri Ram Janam Bhumi is not a juristic person on the basis that ascribing personality to law has no relation to the individual purpose to which juristic personality is assigned. The Court adopted a realistic approach in holding that, conferring juristic personality on land practically alters its character as immovable property, a revolutionary step against which a Court has to protect itself. Nor is it a judicious precaution to bank upon the Court’s passing ad hoc rulings in which a specific immovable property should acquire a juristic character. Without any standard of application to be objectively applied, the drawing of lines will be rendered necessarily subjective, precluding the efficacy of the judicial process.
Subject to the Bhupati Nath Smrititirtha v Ram Lal Maitra decision, the Court explained that even destruction of an idol does not lead to the killing of the religious purpose and therefore the endowment. Even destroyed, or its very existence being irregular or even lacking in totum, the legal personality established by the endowment persists.
- Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. v. The State of Kerala & Ors: The Apex Court in the background of consideration of the right of women menstruating to enter the temple to avail themselves of their right of practising religion on the basis of Fundamental Rights under Article 15, 25, and 26 of our Constitution of India considered the issue whether Ayyappa Temple in Sabarimala possesses a denominational character. True to its commitment to be a friend of the evolution of law in harmony with society, it played an emancipatory role against patriarchy in religion. In this, the petitioner invoked that as all the Hindu temples are administered by the Devaswom Board, they must abide by the fundamental principles of Hindu religion; personal ill practice of any temple against the fundamental principles of Hindu religion is prohibitive. Further, to be a distinct religious denomination, not only would practices being adhered to by such a denomination have to be distinct but even its governance has to be distinct and independent; which in the present situation had been vested in the hands of the Devaswom Board.
The denial of access to women of the notified age by the defendant rested on a fiction that Ayyappa as a nairshika brahmachari is entitled to a right of privacy to keep out such a class of women from worship. The defendant carried this argument one step further in admitting the fundamental rights of an omnipotent in the present case. But the Court held that just because a god has been granted limited rights as juristic persons in law it does not mean that the god has constitutional rights.
- Significance of the legal status of idols
The significance or importance of granting legal status to idols can be listed in the following points:
- Identification as Juristic Persons: Conferment of legal status on idols means that idols are regarded as juristic persons—non-persons with duties and rights defined by law. It entitles idols to own property, accept gifts, pay tax, and enter into litigation, just as corporations or trusts.
- Protection and Administration of Religious Endowments: Legal personality preserves property committed to idols from being misused or appropriated by someone on a personal basis. The idol and not the administering priest (Shebait) is the legal owner of temple property, preserving it from mismanagement or personal claims on the part of individuals. Even when the idol is destroyed or does not exist, legal personality and ownership rights over the property remain intact, preventing the holy purpose of the endowment from being defeated.
- Judicial Remedies and Dispute Resolution: Idols are liable to sue or be sued in court, facilitating the settlement of disputes regarding temple property, management, or religious rights. This provides a valid legal basis for protecting the interests of the deity, devotees and temple. Courts appoint a guardian or ‘next friend’ (the Shebait in most cases) to advocate for the idol, as it is considered a continuing minor, for the independent protection of their interests.
- Conservation of Religious and Cultural Traditions: Upkeep of the religious and cultural value of idols in Indian society is maintained under legal recognition, a testament to the intricate nexus between law and religion in India. It enables religious practices to be continued along with the achievement of the spiritual objectives of property offerings, even by generations or in the aftermath of social turbulence.
- Landmark Judgments and Precedents: Decisions like Promatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick and the Ayodhya judgment have established the idol as
a juristic person, influencing the jurisprudence of religious endowments and property rights. Granting legal status to idols is essential in the protection of religious property, ensuring its proper administration, supplying judicial remedies, and safeguarding the religious and cultural heritage of India. This distinctive aspect of Indian law harmonizes religion with legal responsibility and has been a powerful influence on temple management and religious endowments.
- Conclusion
The recognition of juristic personality to gods by the courts aids in solving modern-day legal vacuums and fostering peace and concord among parties. Being a secular nation, India is not allowed to discriminate and has to treat all equally in matters of religion. The cause of public outcry by other religious believers lies in the legal institution that only granted legal personality to Hinduism. Legal personality has to stay bounded for upstanding purposes and cannot be distorted. The believing community has to be paramount in this doctrine. From Shahid Gunj to Ayodhya, in a nation where religious communities per se will stake claim over property, our courts cannot decide title, which is a secular matter outside religion, as to whose faith believed more or had a better system of beliefs.
But courts must limit themselves in this act of judicialism, too much to demand a separation of religious sentiments and the legal rights of a community. There has to be forward-looking sense and a reformist orientation of secularism in our nation and as an ideal objective evening out the religions, faiths in legal existence. The law has to be in accord with changing social conditions, dynamic, and adjust to the new since it is a part and parcel of the social revolution.
Author- Arihant Chatterjee, 3rd Year, BBA.LLB, Sister Nivedita University, Newtown, Kolkata, West Bengal