LEGAL STATUS OF IDOL AND MOSQUE IN INDIA By - Siddharth Keswani & Miti Jain
LEGAL STATUS OF IDOL
AND
MOSQUE IN INDIA
Authored By - Siddharth Keswani
& Miti Jain
& Miti Jain
ABSTRACT
The paper aims to provide information about the legal
status of idols and mosque in India. What is legal person/personality? What is
legal status of mosque and idols? What rights and duties are implicated after
such status? These questions are answered in the paper. The
legal status of idols and mosques in India is a complex issue, with various
laws and court judgments shaping their status over time. Idols are considered
sacred in many religions, including Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, and are
worshipped by their followers. Mosques, on the
other hand, are places of worship for Muslims
The legal status of idols and mosques in India has
been a subject of controversy and conflict over the years, with disputes
arising over the ownership, management, and control of religious properties.
In summary these are issues of controversy but the
object of this paper is to clarify few facts about the issue and help in coming
at a conclusion with help of relevant examples and case laws
Keyword: idols; legal status; mosque; controversy
INTRODUCTION
·
Kinds of person.
Staring from the basic meaning of person, the word
person is derived from Latin word persona which means mask as in 16th
century people wore mask to cover their face but then eventually person could
be defined in a proper manner, it was defined as something being a subject or
bearer of right.
‘Legal person’ can be real or imaginary and also
includes those things which are treated in the same way as human beings for the
legal purposes. Natural person and legal person aren’t the same thing. A
natural person means a living being or a human being but legal person means
beings or things which are treated as persons by law. In ancient time, in some societies, the
persons who were not considered as persons in the eyes of law, were killed and
it wasn’t treated as homicide. And now if we talk about Hindu law, persons
having certain physical disabilities like impotent persons, blind and deaf:
dumb and those who have lost sense or limb were considered as disqualified for
inheriting property.
·
Legal
personality
In the words of Zitelmann “personality is the legal
capacity of will”. In law, a legal personality means a right and duty bearing
unit, in other words any person or thing that can do things which a human
person can usually do. Legal personality starts with birth and ends with death.
Law attributes legal personality to unborn personality as well. In simple
words, a child who is not even born or a child in mother’s womb is considered
in existence and inherits property.
·
Status
& capacity
Personality should be distinguished from status and
capacity The term
"status" has several different connotations. According to Salmond,
the term has four main definitions:
1. A legal situation of any type, whether private or
business-related.
2. Individual legal situations, excluding business
partnerships.
3. Individual capabilities and limitations in
comparison to other components of status.
4. Required rather than the standard legal stance.
The term "capacity" refers to a person's
inherent rights and powers in a certain situation. A human is capable of many
things. If someone has the position of judge, they simultaneously hold the one
of citizen. Yet, having two capacities does not imply having two personalities.
He only has one legal personality.
·
Idols
Let’s understand what idol means, idol basically means
a cult object, it is a handmade image or representation of a god used as an object
of worship for the deity person. It represents a likeness of something. It has
different meaning in different culture as in Hinduism idol is called MURTI, a
point of focus or meditation.
·
Mosques
What is a mosque?
Mosque is Muslim place of worship; it is also called masjid. The Arabic
word for mosques ‘masjid’ means “place of prostration”. Understanding the meaning is not that easy.
It is not only a religious place but has archaeological significance. Also its
legal technical perspective revolves around the architectural attributes and
historical values. As a result, mosques are classified as
either religious structures or Islamic monuments or as autonomous legal
entities. This viewpoint, which has its roots in the writings of Orientalist
scholars of Islamic art and history from the 19th century, continues to shape
discussions about the preservation of Islamic monuments and the
legal-constitutional debate surrounding Islamic places of worship in
postcolonial South Asia. The next question is how is mosque created? Any act of
worship follows the Islamic rules of prayer can be said to create a mosque,
whether or not it takes in specific building. It is not only used for gathering
prayers but also for studying, celebrating festivals like Ramadan. It can also
be used as house schools and community centres.
·
Who is
a deity and his rights
Deity or god is a supernatural being considered sacred or
divine. It may be defined as character with powers greater than those of
ordinary human beings.
Rights
First of all, how did the practice of treating deities as
person start? It was started in British era, and the reason behind it was that
temples owned huge land and resources so in order to take control of them
British administrators held that The god was the rightful owner of the money,
and a shebait or manager served as trustee. Then later in 1887, it was
again held that deity has rights, it was held by Bombay high court in the Dakor
Temple case.
This was then finally in the year 1921 in Vidya Varuthi
Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar case
which will be discussed in detail later
Now what all rights the deities have? The following rights
are given to the deity:
1.
Owning
property – As the wealth of
temples gained a lot in the past years so in order to prohibit misuse of the
property and manipulation of the wealth, the ownership rights were vested with
the deity itself. In Sri
Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi, v. State of UP [1997 (4)
SCC 606], the Supreme Court decided that endowment properties belong to the
Deity. Lord Sri Vishwanath and it cannot be said that only priests have the
right to manage the temple, they just do it on the behalf of deity Management
of the temple by mahant/pandas/archakas did not imply that it became their
property.
2.
Paying
taxes – this concept of
paying taxes, predominantly, came into existence after Independence. The
Supreme court in the year 1969 held that if deities have the status of a
person, then they have to pay income and other taxes.
3.
To
sue – now if the deity
or god have rights of a person, so they can fight a legal battle. They can be
the plaintiffs or can appeal in the courts. Here are few examples to support
the same. This decision was made in the well-known Ayodhya Ram Temple Case, in
which Lord Ram is alleged to have sued for ownership rights via his trustee.
The instance of the Pathur Nataraja statue is another such. In this instance,
the statue had been taken from a Tamil Nadu temple and sold to the Bumper
Development Corporation for money abroad. When Scotland Yard confiscated it in
1991, the business had shipped it to the British Museum for conservation. Lord
Shiva was included as one of the plaintiffs in the Indian government's lawsuit
seeking the return of the idol. To be Sued – if the deity can sue, it is then
even entitled to be sued against.
To conclude, a deity is considered so only after its public
consecration. Such divinity (deities) have the right to own property, are subject to
taxation, are capable of engaging in civil litigation, and may be sued. They
lack any fundamental rights, nevertheless.
LEGAL STATUS OF MOSQUE AND IDOLS
This topic of Legal status of mosque and idols is open to
interpretations. There are several cases supporting the same. Legal status of
idol is that it is for sure a jurist person. It is considered as a nature being
in the eye of law and has rights also. But the legal status of mosque is not
yet certain because there are several cases in which it is held that mosque is
a juristic person but there are cases denying the same. So at the end it is
open to interpretations and depends on the facts of the case.
In order to understand the concept of legal status of idols
there are few observations from different cases. Few of them will be discussed
below
The judicial committee in Pramatha
Nath v. Pradyumna Kumar case held that idols or a deity
to be juristic entities, which can own property or can sue or be sued in a
court of law. Bhagwan
Ram Virajman was named as a primary plaintiff in the Ayodhya dispute in a 1989
lawsuit brought by Deoki Nandan Agarwal before the Allahabad High Court. He
identified himself as the companion of "Ram Virajman" who would
represent the god in public. Remember that on December 23, 1949, a Ram idol was
installed inside the Bari Mosque, which the Hindus see as a heavenly
revelation. In 2010, the Allahabad High Court issued a decision that gave Ram
Virajman a 1/3 share of the land. The SC later stayed the verdict in 2011. Yet according to the majority
in the Allahabad High Court ruling, once an idol is sanctified, it gains
ownership rights to any things that belong to it. Lord Shaw decided that a Hindu idol is, in
accordance with long-established authority, built upon Hindu religious norms,
and recognised as such by courts of law, a juristic entity. It has legal
standing and the ability to bring and receive lawsuits. The first time the
court acknowledged the legal status of idols was in a 1925 Privy Council case.
Furthermore, in 1969 SC in case
of Yogendra Nath Naskar v. CIT upheld the ownership right of idols or deities
by putting them into taxation ambit.
In the Sabarimala case of 2018, Judge DY
Chandrachud made it clear that while gods or idols have legal rights, they do
not possess basic rights.
The extent and ambit of rights of Ram Lalla will be a
key-determining question in the land title dispute of Ayodhya.
Shahid Ganj Mosque
Ismail Faruqui and the
Allahabad High Court cited the issue of a mosque losing its religious validity
owing to hostile control or being out of use for a significant amount of time
to argue that a mosque is not necessary for the practise of Islam.
The court in Faruqui cited Masjid
Shahid Ganj v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar, a 1940 Privy
Council decision where "it was found that once a mosque has been
negatively acquired by non-Muslims, it lost its hallowed nature as mosque. Hence,
it was not Mahomedan Law of India as sanctioned by Indian Courts to hold that
once a mosque was dedicated, it remained always a place of worship as a mosque.
It is strangely ironic that the Masjid Shahid
Ganj controversy resembled the Babri controversy in reverse; in the Shahid Ganj
case, Muslim lawmakers argued that the gurudwara stood on a location that, for
once, was a mosque. The Privy Council ruled in favour of the Gurudwara,
concluding that Shahid Ganj Mosque lost its status as a result of the Sikhs' adverse
occupancy.
Ismail Faruqui Case
The SC in Ismail Faruqui case concluded that religious
sites that would qualify as being locations of "special significance"
and, as a result, be ineligible for State purchase, are those whose acquisition
would result in the loss of the freedom to worship. The majority judgment in
Allahabad HC used the "particular significance" test to
rule that the site being the birthplace of Ram is not only immune from
acquisition but enquiry can’t be made on the ownership title of Ram Idol.
To determine the necessity of a "house of
worship," the "Particular Significance," originally used in
Ismail Faruqui and reaffirmed in Allhabad HC, uses this criteria. In accordance
with the Essential Religious Practice (ERP) Doctrine, inquiries may be made
about I places of worship, such as in the Ayodhya Title case, or (ii) customs,
traditions, and rituals that were challenged in recent cases, such as Triple
Talaq, Sabarimala Temple, and Dawoodi Bohra female circumcision.
Due to the dispute site being the location of Ram's
birth, the Specific Significance Test may tip the scales in favour of Hindu
claimants. In a multireligious society with a wide range of traditions and
subsects, it is important to investigate if the test can be impartial. Also, is
it not at odds with "essential and integral test" for
scrutinising customs and rituals where the court looks at both integrity and
essentiality of practice.
CONCLUSION
At the end it can be concluded that,
personality in law or legal status is a wider concept. The legal status of
idols and mosques in India is a complex and contentious issue that has been the
subject of ongoing legal battles and social conflicts. The legal personality is
a concept wherein a person is granted legal status by law which means that
personality has a distinct identity and has rights like owning property, suing
and being sued. such identity is created for the purpose of law. For instance,
an idol is giving the said status by law.
Moreover, describing the distinctions between the Guru Grant Sahib and
other holy texts like the Geeta, the Quran, etc. The Guru Granth Sahib is more
than just a book; it is revered as the Guru. Guru Govind Singh declared,
"I am the final Guru," and it was his intention that Sikhs consider
the Guru Granth Sahib as their exclusive and exclusive guru and revere it. In
terms of religion, Guru Granth Sahib is a Guru. As a result, Corpus personified
it, creating what the law regards as a legal person; yet, this personification
is not seen in any other literature. Just the words of God are contained in the
Geeta, Quran, etc.; yet, they do not constitute God in and of themselves. The
main concern is that people of India are so emotionally connected with idols
and mosque that they cannot digest changed being made or are to be made. This worsens
the situation even more.
Even after so many judicial development in
this regard, these remain complex and sensitive issues that require continued
attention and sensitivity in order to ensure peaceful coexistence and the
protection of the rights of all communities. Babri masjid case portrays the
sensitivity of the issue even after the final judgement of the apex court of
India tensions between the religions prevail till now. It is difficult to conclude
on a firm point but the facts that can lead to conclusion are mentioned above
in the paper.
REFERENCES
6. Others
Jurisprudence textbook by VD Mahajan
LIST OF CASES
1)
Dakor Temple
case
2) Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami
Ayyar
3)
Sri Adi
Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi, vs State of UP
4)
Ayodhya Ram Temple Case