Legal Interpretation from Ayodhya Verdict Part 9
===================
Jay Shree Ram!
These are some notes from Ayodhya
Verdict regarding legal interpretations of certain statutory provisions:
Where there exists an express deed of
dedication, the legal personality vests in the pious purpose of the founder.
The idol is the material embodiment of the pious purpose and is the site of
jural relations. There are instances of the submergence or even destruction of
the idol inspite of which it has been held that the legal personality continues
to subsist. Even if a testator were to make a dedication to a religious purpose
but the idol did not exist at the time the dedication was made or the manifestation
of the divine was not in the form of the idol, but in the form of some other
object of religious significance, the legal personality would continue to vest
in the pious purpose of the dedication itself.
A Swayambhu deity is a manifestation
of God that is ‘self-revealed’ or ‘discovered as existing’ as opposed to a
traditional idol that is hand-crafted and consecrated by the prana pratishta
ceremony. The word ‘swayam’ means ‘self’ or ‘on its own’, ‘bhu’ means ‘to take
birth’. A Swayambhu deity is one which has manifested itself in nature without
human craftsmanship. Common examples of these deities are where a tree grows in
the shape of a Hindu God or Goddess or where a natural formation such as ice or
rock takes the form of a recognised Hindu deity.
A Swayambhu deity is the revelation
of God in a material form which is subsequently worshipped by devotees. The
recognition of a Swayambhu deity is based on the notion that God is omnipotent
and may manifest in some physical form. This manifestation is worshipped as the
embodiment of divinity. In all these cases, the very attribution of divinity is
premised on the manifestation of the deity in a material form. Undoubtedly, a
deity may exist without a physical manifestation, example of this being the
worship offered to the Sun and the Wind.
It is true that the connection
between a person and what they consider divine is deeply internal. It lies in
the realm of a personal sphere in which no other person must intrude. It is for
this reason that the Constitution protects the freedom to profess, practice and
propagate religion equally to all citizens. Often, the human condition finds
solace in worship. But worship may not be confined into a straightjacket
formula. It is on the basis of the deep entrenchment of religion into the
social fabric of Indian society that the right to religious freedom was not
made absolute. An attempt has been made in the jurisprudence of this court to
demarcate the religious from the secular. The adjudication of civil claims over
private property must remain within the domain of the secular if the commitment
to constitutional values is to be upheld. Over four decades ago, the
Constitution was amended and a specific reference to its secular fabric was
incorporated in the Preamble. At its heart, this reiterated what the
Constitution always respected and accepted: the equality of all faiths.
Secularism cannot be a writ lost in the sands of time by being oblivious to the
exercise of religious freedom by everyone.
============================
Read more on Telegram Channel
===========================
Comments
Post a Comment