Juristic person or entity is someone who got rights & duties granted by the law. As a normal human being has laws, duties or rights granted to them automatically upon their birth, a juristic person is artificial and gets rights or personality only after the courts order. Companies are juristic person or entity as they are not natural human being, it is an artificial entity which has rights to hold property in its name.

The Britishers, while ruling India came up with considering Hindu dieties/idols as a juristic person in Dakor Temple case[1]. During their rule, temples had vast areas of land and huge amount of donations/gifts, so the Britishers considered those assets to be owned by that respective Hindu idol, but the property rights of the juristic person will be different than that of the normal human being.

Old Roman regulations did not use to even consider a slave as a normal human being. But later with the political, legal & societies evolution, everyone was given basic rights of a human being. Then later artificial entity or person like the State, and company were granted the rights as a jurist person.

The legitimate thought of a Hindu idols as a juristic person might have its starting points in the English custom-based regulation. Be that as it may, the Hindu idols juristic character is novel. As far as one might be concerned, a Hindu idol gets its juristic character from the grouping of the devotion of its admirers.

The English regulation cannot comprehend the formation of a juristic individual exclusively through dedication and devotion. In Britain, a juristic individual is made by State regulation, not obtained from confidence. Yet, the Hindu regulation earnestly acknowledges the conviction of faith that a god's character lives in an idol.

In Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Som Nath Dass and Others[2], it was quoted that Hindu gods are not considered as judicial person or entity but the deities or the idols are considered as juristic person and thus has the right to hold properties/assets, pay tax, sue someone or be sued. But this only applies for public temples or idols as it was held in ‘Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Income-Tax Commisioner' that there are different criterias for specifying a hindu idol as a juristic person, but the most basic criteria is that the hindu idol is should be for the worshipping by public[3].

In Vidya Varuthi Thirtha versus Balusami Ayyar[4] case, the court held that Hindus can gift property (debutter property) to their Hindu gods and idols as Hindu idols are considered as ‘Juristic person'. The court denied to accept mosques as ‘juristic' person because according to court a worshiping place cannot be considered and given rights of a juristic person. The evolution of Hindu laws did not stop treating idols as a juristic person, they just came up with the rule that as the court considers juristic person as a minor, it gives the rights to the ‘shebait'(manager) as a guardian to a minor.

The Supreme Court of India in ‘Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors',[5] held that although the ownership of the debutter property is with the Hindu idol, its physical possession will be with ‘shebait' (manager of the temple). Section 32 of ‘Code of Civil Procedure' mentions that a minor should be accompanies by the guardian to the court.[6] But in some cases the guardian or in this term ‘shebait' does not act in good faith to the minor or the idol.

According to the Supreme Court of India in ‘Biswanath and another versus Sri Thakur Radhaballabhji'[7] and ‘Code of Civil Procedure'[8], Hindu worshippers have right to come and protect the interest or rights of the idol as a friend.

In 1989, the first person who filed the plea in Allahabad High Court as a friend of ‘Ram Lala' was Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, a retired judge. Senior advocate K Parasaran(former Attorney General of India and popularly called the ‘Bhishma Pitamaha' among lawyers) argued for the rights of lord Ram Lala virajman to be considered as a juristic person (minor) like other Hindu idols. ‘Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956' states that it is the states or courts duty to protect the rights of the minor in case the guardian fails to.[9] So after the demise of TV Verma(second friend of Ram Lala), the court appointed Trilokhi Nath in the new place.

In 1989, there were four suits initiated in the Allahabad High Court for deciding.

The following were:

• The Visharad Suit[10];
• The Nirmohi Akhara suit[11];
• The Wakf Board suit[12]; and
• The Bhagwan Shri Ram suit[13]

The first three suits were dismissed by the court and only the ‘bhagwan Shri Ram suit' succeed. The ‘bhagwan Ram Lala suit' was not treated as a property dispute because the 2nd plaintiff (i.e., Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi) is the property in question, therefore, it was filed under Article 25 i.e., "Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion[14]".

The Allahabad High court questioned the validity of both the plaintiffs [plaintiff 1(i.e., Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman) and 2nd plaintiff (i.e., Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi)] being juristic person. 2010 Ayodhya judgement was based on the consideration of the Hindu idol being a minor. The court said that there cannot be any case of possession of property against a perpetual minor. This is not valid as there is similarity between an idol (a juristic person) and a minor.

The main common ground is that both have to be represented by their guardian or shebait. A juristic person under the English framework has no body or soul and no freedoms with the exception of those credited to it by men. An idol is imagined as a living being with its own advantages unmistakable from those of its admirers/worshippers.

It is, hence, a juristic person of a particular kind. A minor and an idol might possess property, donations, assets, safeguard their inclinations, all through another individual (a legitimate guardian for a minor, a shebaitfor a symbol). These administrators have comparative abilities, including the ability to sue. Be that as it may, there are contrasts too.

A symbol is innately a demonstration of artificial judicial person, yet a minor is a natural human being with its own characteristics. An idol or juristic person exists for itself, yet additionally for its admirers/worshippers, while a minor only exists for itself. In particular, under the meaningful law of agreement, a minor cannot get into it while an icon may. Descriptive regulation (impediment) excludes a minor from the bar of time. This insurance is not reached out to Hindu symbols.

In 2010 ‘bhagwan Shri Ram suit', Allahabad High court constituted a special three judge bench to came out with a decision. The bench constituted ‘Justice Sibhghat Ullah Khan', ‘Justice Sudhir Aggarwal' and ‘Justice Dharam Veer Sharma'. Justice Sibhghat Ullah Khan did not gave reasoning for considering the plaintiffs of suit 5 as juristic person. He mentioned that Provision 6 of the Limitations Act will be applied to this case no matter if the juristic person is not considered as minor.[15]

Provision 6 of the Limitation Act states that "Where a person entitled to institute a suit or make an application for the execution of a decree is, at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor or insane, or an idiot, he may institute the suit or make the application within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise have been allowed from the time specified therefor in the third column of the Schedule." [16]

Contradicting the statements of Justice Sibhghat Ullah Khan, Justice Sudhir Aggarwal said Limitation Act will not be applied as it will attract provision 6 of the Limitation Act which will lead to postponement of the suit for infinite period as Bhagwan Ram Lala Virajman is not a natural human being and being an artificial juristic person, the age of the plaintiff will not increase. Justice Sudhir Aggarwal also mentioned that as the suit is filed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India and that too by the Bhagwan shri Ram lala virajman itself, applicability of section 6 of the Limitation act is not valid.[17]

Justice Dharam Veer Sharma without mentioning the reason for considering plaintiffs as juristic person held that the juristic person is considered as minor and therefor section 6 of the Limitation Act will be applicable.[18]

After this when the suit was moved to the Supreme Court of India, in 2019 the bench agreed with the statement by Justice Sibhghat Ullah Khan that the juristic person will not be treated as minor to impose section 6 of the Limitation Act. Then the bench agreed with the comments of Justice Sudhir Aggarwal that Limitation Act will not be valid in this suit. But, it did not agree with Justice Sudhir Aggarwal's decision of treating plaintiff 2 (i.e., Asthan Sri Rama Janma Bhumi) as juristic person.

The Supreme Court of India held that a Hindu idol can be treated as juristic person, that too in per case basis, but a devotional land cannot be treated as juristic person. So, the bench only considered plaintiff 1(i.e., Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman) as a juristic person but it was done without the existence of valid deed of endowment[19].

The act by Supreme Court of India to validate that Bhagwan Sri Rama Lala Virajman is a juristic person gave open pass to others to consider the god as juristic person In various other cases, like Mathura and Kashi, the advocates did not provide an endowment or valid legal deed (which were the essentials for getting the title of juristic person) and by default considered the Hindu idols as juristic person to file their case. The Supreme Court of India's judgement unknowingly removed the importance of legal requirements for validating idols as juristic person.

Bibliography
Cases:

• Manohar Ganesh Tambekar And Ors. vs Lakhmiram Govindram And Ors. (1888) ILR 12 Bom 247, [1888] Bombay High Court
• Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Som Nath Dass and Others (2000) 3 SC 67, [2000] Supreme Court of India, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde
• Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Income-Tax Commisioner (1969) AIR 1089, [1969] Supreme Court of India
• Vidya Varuthi Thirtha versus Balusami Ayyar (1922) 24 BOMLR 629, [1922] Bombay High Court
• Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors (1999) 5 SCC 689, [1999] Supreme Court of India
• Biswanath and another versus Sri Thakur Radhaballabhji (1967) AIR 1044, [1967] Supreme Court of India
• Gopal Singh Visharad since deceased and survived by Rajendra Singh Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others (1989) O.O.S No. 1 of 1989, [1989] Allahabad High Court
• Nirmohi Akhara and others Vs. Baboo Priya Datt Ram and others (1989) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [1989] Allahabad High Court
• The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. and others Vs.Gopal Singh Visharad (since deceased) and other (1989) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [1989] Allahabad High Court
• Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Virajman and others Vs.Rajendra Singh and others (2010) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [2010] Allahabad High Court

Statues:

• The Limitation Act 1963
• The Constitution Of India 1949
• Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956
• Code of Civil Procedure 1908

Secondary References

• Govind R, ‘On The Deity As Juristic Personality: The Religious, The Secular And The Nation In The Ayodhya Dispute And The Ayodhya Judgments (2010 And 2019)' (2021) National Law School Of India Review, Vol. 33 accessed 03 November 2022.

End-Notes:

1. Manohar Ganesh Tambekar And Ors. vs Lakhmiram Govindram And Ors. (1888) ILR 12 Bom 247, [1888] Bombay High Court [¶ 6]
2. Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee vs Som Nath Dass and Others (2000) 3 SC 67, [2000] Supreme Court of India, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde
3. Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Income-Tax Commisioner (1969) AIR 1089, [1969] Supreme Court of India
4. Vidya Varuthi Thirtha versus Balusami Ayyar (1922) 24 BOMLR 629, [1922] Bombay High Court [¶ 11]
5. Ram Jankijee Deities & Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors (1999) 5 SCC 689, [1999] Supreme Court of India [¶8]
6. Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s 32
7. Biswanath and another versus Sri Thakur Radhaballabhji (1967) AIR 1044, [1967] Supreme Court of India
8. Code of Civil Procedure 1908, s 92
9. Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act 1956, s 11
10. Gopal Singh Visharad since deceased and survived by Rajendra Singh Vs. Zahoor Ahmad and others (1989) O.O.S No. 1 of 1989, [1989] Allahabad High Court
11. Nirmohi Akhara and others Vs. Baboo Priya Datt Ram and others (1989) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [1989] Allahabad High Court
12. The Sunni Central Board of Waqfs, U.P. and others Vs.Gopal Singh Visharad (since deceased) and other (1989) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [1989] Allahabad High Court
13. Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Virajman and others Vs.Rajendra Singh and others (2010) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [2010] Allahabad High Court
14. The Constitution Of India 1949, Article 25
15. Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Virajman and others Vs.Rajendra Singh and others (2010) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [2010] Allahabad High Court (Justice Khan)
16. The Limitation Act 1963, s 6
17. Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Virajman and others Vs.Rajendra Singh and others (2010) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [2010] Allahabad High Court (Justice Aggarwal)
18. Bhagwan Sri Ram Lala Virajman and others Vs.Rajendra Singh and others (2010) O.O.S No. 3 of 1989, [2010] Allahabad High Court (Justice Sharma)
19. Rahul Govind, ‘On The Deity As Juristic Personality: The Religious, The Secular And The Nation In The Ayodhya Dispute And The Ayodhya Judgments (2010 And 2019)' (2021) National Law School Of India Review, Vol. 33 accessed 03 November 2022.

Also Read:

• Rights of A Deity