Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Drishtikone

Home
Hindu
Lord Ram as Juristic Person and Legal History of Religious Juristic Persons

Lord Ram as Juristic Person and Legal History of Religious Juristic Persons

Last updated on: October 1, 2010 at 4:17 am by Desh Kapoor

Lord Ram as Juristic Person and Legal History of Religious Juristic Persons 2010-10-01T04:17:21-05:00 Desh Kapoor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

One of the interesting parts of the Ayodhya verdict was declaring Lord Ram – the deity of Ram Janmabhoomi temple – as a “Juristic Person”. As per Common law, which is the basis of Western law system, also applied in India since the British time, there are two persons: Natural and Legal. Natural persons are human beings, while Legal (juristic) persons are any beings or things or objects which are treated as persons by law. For legal purposes, they are given the similar treatment as that to the human beings.

There have been many cases in India since the British time, where the question of religious places, deities, scriptures being “Juristic Person” came in front of the court. The courts used the basis of religious beliefs followed as per the scriptures and tradition in a particular religion to come up with their judgment.

Mosque as Juristic Person

First time a case similar to Ayodhya was encountered was in 1935 in Lahore. The case facts have been explained below,

The Masjid alongwith courtyard of about 4 kanals was existing in Lahore since 1722. The place became a place of martyrs (Shahid Ganj) for Bhai Taru Singh and many other Sikhs including women and children were executed here by the Muslim rulers. The mosque and other land came into the possession of Sikhs when they occupied Lahore in 1762. A Gurdwara was built adjacent to the mosque. The Muslims were not allowed access to the place since then. After the British annexation, a criminal case and two civil suits by the Muslims failed in 1850 and 1855, respectively. The Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 declared the mosque building and adjacent land as Sikh Gurdwara, ‘Shahid Ganj Bhai Taru Singh’. Various claims were filed before the Sikh Gurdwaras Tribunal by the Gurdwara Mahants and Muslims for having the rights therein. Their claims failed before the Tribunal, which held that Mahants hold possession on behalf of the Gurdwara and the case of Muslims failed due to adverse possession and previous decisions. Following this mosque building was demolished by the Sikhs in July 1935. Riots and disorder followed, the Muslims expressing great resentment. The present suit was filed in October 1935 in the Court of District Judge Lahore against the SGPC. It contained no claim for possession of property or ejectment of the defendants. The relief claimed was a declaration that building was a mosque in which all followers of Islam had a right to worship, an injunction restraining any improper use of building and mandatory injunction to reconstruct the building. The District Judge dismissed the suit. An appeal to the High Court was also dismissed by Young C.J. and Bhide, J.; Din Mohammed J. dissenting.

This suit was filed in the name of mosque and some others. It was motivated by the notion that if the mosque could be made out to be a ‘juristic person’, this would assist to establish that a mosque remains a mosque for ever, that limitation (adverse possession) cannot be applied to it. The Privy Council [6], dismissing the appeal, did not accept the mosque as a juristic person. The contention that ‘a Hindu idol is a juristic person and on the same principle a mosque as an institution should be considered as a juristic person’ was rejected. It was held that there is no analogy between the position in law of a building dedicated as a place of prayer for Muslims and the individual deities of the Hindu religion.

Basically, the Privy Council held that mosque is not a juristic person.

Sikh Scripture as Juristic Person

In the judgment Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar v. Som Nath Dass and others delivered on March 29, 2000, the Supreme Court of India has held that Sri Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person. The judgment said that Sri Guru Granth Sahib installed in a Gurudwara, becomes a “Juristic Person” and a valid dedication may be made to it by the Sikhs. It must be however remembered 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 recognized public place”.

The court also declared, rather intriguingly that:

“It is not necessary for “Guru Granth Sahib” to be declared a juristic person that it should be equated with.. [a Hindu] idol. Where beliefs and faith of the different religions are different, there is no question of equating one with another”. Court appears to have differentiated between religious beliefs in Sikhism and Hinduism.

(Religion and personal law in secular India: a call to judgment By Gerald James Larson pages 97 and 98)

Hindu Deity as a Juristic Person

The question of whether a Hindu Deity can be a juristic person or not was decided by Privy Council in the case Vidya Varuthi Thirthia Swamigal v. Baluswami Ayyar AIR 1922

On the question of the legal personality of the Hindu Deities, Ameer Ali remarked on page 126: “Under the Hindu law, the image of a deity of the Hindu pantheon is, as has been aptly called a ‘juristic entity,’ vested with the capacity of receiving gifts and holding property.”

A similar conclusion was reached by Lord Moulton in the Privy Council decision in Ambalavana Pandara Sannidhi v. Meenakshi Sundareswaral Devastanam, where His Lordship pointed out that the general trustee is only a representative of the idol who is a juridical personage, and who is true owner.

Then again in another judgment by Indian Supreme Court (Radha Kanta Deb v. Commr. Of Hindu Religious Endowments, (1981) 2 SCC 226), a Hindu idol was recognized as a Juristic Person.

Conclusion

Basically, nothing in Islam’s religious structure can be “identified” to a form or a person. Not even the Prophet Mohammad. So, the courts seem to have come to the conclusion that the religious context does not warrant a Juristic Person argument in Islam. Sikh theology and Hindu theology and religious strictures differ. Although, Guru Nanak did affirm the centrality of Formless as the worshippable God, Guru Gobind added a twist by installing Sri Guru Granth Sahib as a worshippable Guru, as a true representative of God.

Media Rants and Lack of Legal Rigor

Like the following blogger ranting on his blog without any reference or context to the legal history declares:

I thought words like divine, spirit, shapeless and formless belonged to the realm of religion, politics and society — not judiciary. But the judgement of Justice Dharam Veer Sharma has become the meeting point of faith and law.

“The deity (Ram) also attained the divinity like Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath,” he wrote. “Asthan is personified as the spirit of divine…” On what “facts” is this idea of divinity based, I can’t understand.

This person obviously was never admitted into a law class or knows how a legal judgment is approached.

For, legal judgments are made with regard to the context of the case. If some traditions are followed, say in mercantile processes, then the judgment uses that context to come up with the most valid judgment on the case concerning it.

Similarly, Indian Supreme Court, while coming to its judgment in Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee Amritsar v. Som Nath Dass; used the religious context in Sikhism to decide that Sri Guru Granth Sahib was a Juristic Person.

So, this “meeting point of faith and law” is not a new invention of Justice DV Sharma – but a NORM as far as Judicial standards are concerned.

One is sure that such a line of ranting arguments will be used by many in media – appearing all “self righteous” and “educated”; without of course any knowledge of Law, Judgments or Legal standards in India and around the world.

Well, one never blamed Media for being smart and educated in recent years anyway.

Previous Post

September 30, 2010

Ram Janmabhoomi Verdict

Next Post

October 1, 2010 Ayodhya Verdict brings Moment of Truth for Moderate Muslims

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Aarti Achievement and Leadership AfPak Africa Annual and Year-end Asia Audio Australia Behavioural Sciences Bhagwad Gita Bhagwad Gita Blogging Blogs Business Business Intelligence Business Strategy Cannes Careers Chanakya China Conservation Corruption Creative Daily Links Desh Poems Development & Welfare Devotional Audio Devotional Songs Drama Earth Economics Education Entertainment Environment Europe Everyday Quotes Featured Articles Featured Songs Finance Flickr Pictures Food Geo-Political Global Warming Globalization Health & Medicine Hinduism Historic History Humour India Indian Culture Indian music Indian Weddings Israel Issues Legal Link Love Minorities Misc Motivation and Personal Development Movie Lists Movie Reviews Movies Mumbai terror attacks Natural Disasters Nature News Outsourcing Pakistan Parenting Personal Philosophy Poetry Politics Poverty Quotes Recipe Regular Blog Post Relationships Religion Religious/Spiritual Audio Sciences Showcase Slideshow South Asia Special Stories Spiritual Quotes Spirituality Sports Stories Strategy Technology Technology Terrorism Travel Uncategorized US Video Women Women_s Rights Worship Yoga

Select a Month December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 June 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 September 2014 August 2014 January 2014 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What did Moses' staff turn into before Pharaoh?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A pillar of fire A bird A stone A serpent