Legal Interpretations from Ayodhya Verdict Part 7
===================
Jay Shree Ram!
These are some notes from Ayodhya
Verdict regarding legal interpretations of certain statutory provisions:
The Hindu practice of dedicating
properties to temples and idols had to be adjudicated upon by courts for the
first time in the late nineteenth century. The doctrine that Hindu idols
possess a distinct legal personality was adopted by English judges in India
faced with the task of applying Hindu law to religious endowments. Property
disputes arose and fuelled questions about the ownership of the properties. Two
clear interests were recognised as subjects of legal protection. First, there
existed the real possibility of maladministration by the shebaits (i.e.
managers) where land endowed for a particular pious purpose, ordinarily to the
worship of an idol, was poorly administered or even alienated. Second, where
the land was dedicated to public worship, there existed the threat that access
or other religious benefits would be denied to the public, in particular to the
devotees. Where the original founder of the endowment was not alive and the
shebait was not the owner of the lands, how were the courts (and through them
the State) to give effect to the original dedication? 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 the legal personality of the Hindu idol. It was a legal innovation
necessitated by historical circumstances, the gap in the existing law and by
considerations of convenience. It had the added advantage of conferring legal
personality on an object that within Hinduism had long been subject to
personification. The exact contours of the legal personality so conferred are
of relevance to the present case to which this judgement now adverts.
A Hindu, who wishes to establish a
religious or charitable institution, may, according to his law, express his
purpose and endow it, and the ruler will give effect to the bounty … A trust is
not required for this purpose: the necessity of a trust in such a case is
indeed a peculiarity and a modern peculiarity of the English law. – Justice B K
Mukhergea
But if there is a juridical person,
the ideal embodiment of a pious or benevolent idea as the centre of the
foundation, this artificial subject of rights is as capable of taking offerings
of cash and jewels as of land. Those who take physical possession of the one as
of the other kind of property incur thereby a responsibility for its due
application to the purposes of the foundation. – Justice B K Mukhergea
It is only as subject to this control
in the general interest of the community that the State through the law courts
recognizes a merely artificial person. It guards property and rights as
devoted, and thus belonging, so to speak, to a particular allowed purpose only
on a condition of varying the application when either the purpose has become
impracticable, useless or pernicious, or the funds have augmented in an
extraordinary measure. - – Justice B K
Mukhergea
The creation of an endowment resulted
in the creation of an artificial legal person. The artificial or juridical
person represents or embodies a pious or benevolent purpose underlying its
creation. Legal personality is conferred on the pious purpose of the individual
making the endowment. Where the endowment is made to an idol, the idol forms
the material representation of the legal person. This juridical person (i.e.
the pious purpose represented by the idol) can in law accept offerings of
movable and immovable property which will vest in it. The legal personality of
the idol, and the rights of the idol over the property endowed and the
offerings of devotees, are guarded by the law to protect the endowment against
maladministration by the human agencies entrusted with the day to day
management of the idol.
============================
Read more on Telegram Channel
===========================
Comments
Post a Comment