Religion and the law: India
This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. |
The legal personality of God and idols
God is not a juristic person, but idol is: SC, 2019
Dhananjay Mahapatra, Nov 21, 2019: The Times of India
God or ‘Supreme Being’ may be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent but has no juristic personality, but an idol, worshipped by believers as a physical incarnation of God, is a juristic personality, the Supreme Court has said.
“Legal personality is not conferred on the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being has no physical presence for it is understood to be omnipresent — the very ground of being itself. The court does not confer legal personality on divinity,” ruled a bench of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde (now CJI), D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer in its landmark judgment settling the 70-year-old Ayodhya land dispute.
“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,” the bench said.
The SC said in contrast, an idol was identifiable by its physical form and hence could have juristic personality. “The idea of a legal person is premised on the need to ‘identify the subjects’ of the legal system. An omnipresent (God or Supreme Being) being is incapable of being identified or delineated in any manner meaningful to the law and no identifiable legal subject could emerge,” it added.
“In Hinduism, physical manifestation of the Supreme Being exists in the form of idols to allow worshippers to experience a shapeless being. The idol is the representation of the Supreme Being. The idol, by possessing physical form, is identifiable,” it said.
The SC said the Hindu practice of dedicating properties to temples and idols had to be adjudicated upon by courts for the first time in the late 19th century.
“To provide courts with a conceptual framework within which they could analyse and practically adjudicate upon disputes involving competing claims over endowed properties, courts recognised legal personality of the Hindu idol. It was a legal innovation necessitated by historical circumstances, the gap in the existing law and by considering convenience,” the SC said.
Idols have an Indestructible Legal Persona
Dhananjay Mahapatra, Nov 21, 2019: The Times of India
Within the landmark Ayodhya verdict, the Supreme Court ruled that Hindu idols have an indestructible legal persona and that an idol’s destruction does not end its rights over properties dedicated to it by devotees, worshippers and believers.
“The idol constitutes the embodiment or expression of the pious purpose upon which legal personality is conferred. Destruction of the idol does not result in termination of the pious purpose and consequently the endowment,” a bench of then CJI Ranjan Gogoi and Justices S A Bobde (now CJI), D Y Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and S Abdul Nazeer said in its Ayodhya judgment. “The idol as an embodiment of a pious or benevolent purpose is recognised by the law as a juristic entity. The state will therefore protect property which stands vested in the idol even absent the establishment of a specific or express trust,” it added.
In what could encourage religious bodies, which exercise authority over temple endowment properties, to dig into the past to find whether invasions had led to destruction of idols and consequent confiscation of endowed properties, the SC said, “Even where the idol is destroyed, or the presence of the idol itself is intermittent or entirely absent, the legal personality created by the endowment continues to subsist.”
The court was referring to properties attached to temples without idols, or the funds raised in the name of various puja committees across India, which according to the festivals worship Ganesh, Durga and other idols and then immerse them in water.
“In our country, idols are routinely submerged in water as a matter of religious practice. It cannot be said that the pious purpose is also extinguished due to such submersion. The establishment of the image of the idol is the manner in which the pious purpose is fulfilled,” the bench said.
“A conferral of legal personality on the idol is, in effect, a recognition of the pious purpose itself and not the method through which that pious purpose is usually personified. The pious purpose may also be fulfilled where the presence of idol is intermittent or there exists a temple absent an idol depending on the deed of dedication. In all such cases, the pious purpose on which legal personality is conferred continues to subsist,” it said.
“Upon making an endowment, the donor relinquishes all claims to the endowed property. The property now vests in the pious purpose at the heart of endowment, which is recognised as a legal person. The idol forms the material manifestation of the pious purpose and the consequent centre of jural relations,” it added.
