Juristic Personality of Idols: What's it all about?

Profile of the author - Nakshatra Bhasin is a second year law student at Amity Law School, Noida.

Introduction 

An idol of a God may be a juristic person. A juristic person, as opposed to a “natural person” (that is, a human being), is an entity whom the law vests with a personality. In other words, Juristic person, unlike a natural person (human being) is an entity or organisation authorised by law with duties and rights and is recognised as a legal person having a distinct identity. Along with Gods; corporations, rivers and animals have all been treated as a juristic person by the courts. 

Juristic personality of the idol of a God/Deity

The judiciary recognises the idol of the God as a Juristic person. It is not an individual or natural person, but an artificially created person in the eyes of law. The treatment of idols as a juristic person started under the British rule. Along with land, temples owned a vast variety of institutions and other resources such as- library, museum, parks, educational institutes etc. To simplify this, the British Administrators held that the legal owner of the wealth and property would be the God or the Deity himself, along with a ‘shebait’ acting as the trustee. Shebait is any person who serves and supports the deity and works as a manager of the debuttar property. The land and properties vested with the Deity are managed by the Shebait. Usually the priests are the shebait or any trust or individual managing the temple.

In the 2010 Allahabad HC judgment in the Ayodhya title suit,[1] Justice D V Sharma had said: “As in the case of minors, a guardian is appointed and so in the case of an idol, a Shebait or manager is appointed to act on their behalf.”. He has the power to deal with all the affairs of the Deity or the God. In 1887, the Bombay High Court held in the Dakor Temple case [2] : “Hindu idol is a juridical subject and the pious idea that it embodies is given the status of a legal person.” This was reinforced in the 1921 order in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar, [3] where the court said, “under the Hindu law, the image of a deity… (is) a ‘juristic entity’, vested with the capacity of receiving gifts and holding property”.

Not all the Gods and Deity are considered as a juristic person. God or a “Supreme Being” may be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent, but only the one which has an idol and has people believing and worshiping that idol, can be called as a juristic person. A bench consisting of Former CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justice SA Bobde (present CJI), DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer in its landmark judgment settling the 70-year-old Ayodhya Ram Mandir matter [4] stated, “Divinity in Hindu philosophy is seamless, universal and infinite. Divinity pervades every aspect of the universe. The attributes of divinity defy description and furnish the fundamental basis for not defining it with reference to boundaries — physical or legal. For this reason that it is omnipresent, it would be impossible to distinguish where one legal entity ends and the next begins”. Furthermore, the idol has to be consecrated and  installed at a public place for all the believers to worship it. 

A Mosque and a Church are not considered as a Juristic Person. This is so because they are not an object of worship itself. Both Mosque and Church are a place where believers come and offer their prayers.

In Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Som Nath Dass, [5] the SC ruled that the “Guru Granth Sahib… cannot be equated with other sacred books… Guru Granth Sahib is revered like a Guru… (and) is the very heart and spirit of gurudwara. The reverence of Guru Granth on the one hand and other sacred books, on the other hand, is based on different conceptual faith, belief and application.”

However, the court clarified that “every Guru Granth Sahib cannot be a juristic person unless it takes a juristic role through its installation in a gurdwara or at such other recognised public places.”

Rights of an idol

As a juristic person, the idol has the following rights:

• Owning property and Wealth
• Paying taxes 
• Suing and being sued 

In the Sabarimala case, [6] one of the arguments presented against allowing women of menstruating age entry into the temple was that this would violate the right to privacy of Lord Ayyappa, who is eternally celibate. [7]

A lawyer who worked on the Sabarimala case said: “Deities have property rights, but not fundamental rights or other constitutional rights.” This was upheld by Justice D Y Chandrachud in the Sabarimala judgment: “Merely because a deity has been granted limited rights as juristic persons under statutory law does not mean that the deity necessarily has constitutional rights.”  

Conclusion

The judiciary recognises the idol of God/Deity as a Juristic Person. Other than Hindu Gods and Deities, the Guru Granth Sahib too is a juristic person based on its conceptual faith, belief and application.

Disclaimer: This article is an original submission of the Author. Niti Manthan does not hold any liability arising out of this article. Kindly refer to our Terms of use or write to us in case of any concerns.

References

[1] M. Sidiq v. Mahant Suresh Das [2010].

[2] Shankarlal Purshottam Gor vs Dakor Temple Committee, AIR 1926 Bom 179 (India).

[3] Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar,  (1922) 24 BOMLR 629 (India).

[4] Supra note 1.

[5] Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak v. Shri Som Nath Dass & Ors.

[6] Indian Young Lawyers Association & Ors. vs The State of Kerala, [2017] 10 SCC 689.

[7] Yashee, ‘The Lord as a juristic person: What legal rights do deities enjoy.’ The Indian Express (August 05, 2020) <https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ayodhya-title-suit-lord-ram-the-lord-as-a-juristic-person-what-legal-rights-do-deities-enjoy-6052442/>