http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ord-became-a-litigant/articleshow/6662553.cms
NEW DELHI: It may have come as a surprise to many when Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman virtually fought litigation for the last 21 years before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad HC through his "next friend" and got ownership rights over the disputed site.
Can a deity, like a normal human being, fight a legal battle when, as the incarnation of god, he is believed to mitigate the problems of others?
The HC replied in the affirmative. "This court is of the view that place of birth, that is Ram Janmabhumi, is a juristic person. The deity also attained divinity like Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as the birthplace of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as a child."
In effect, the ruling means that while Ram Lala, being a deity, enjoys legal rights, but since he is a minor he would be allowed to be represented in court through his guardian or next friend.
Well, in the Indian judicial system, deities have always been regarded as legal entities who could fight their case through the trustees or managing board in charge of the temple in which they are worshipped by devotees.
If Ram Lala fought his case in Lucknow, even Kashi Vishwanath of Varanasi had done so in the Supreme Court when the UP government enacted the Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 for better management of the ancient temple.
The Supreme Court, in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi, vs State of UP [1997 (4) SCC 606], recognised the right of a deity, though not for the first time, to move court and said, "Properties of endowment vest in the deity, Lord Sri Vishwanath."
It dismissed claim of the priests that they alone had the right to manage the temple on behalf of the deity and said management of the temple by mahant/pandas/archakas did not mean it became their property. It upheld the Act saying it was merely for better management of the temple.
Similarly, in Bihar State Board of Religious Trust vs Ramsubaran Das [1996 SCALE (2) 702], the SC had pointed to ancient revenue records attaching the temple land in the name of the deity. It had said, "That mahants dealt with the properties in their own names does not detract from the fact that the temples were public temples as they would well be said to be dealing with on behalf of the deities to whom the properties are dedicated."
NEW DELHI: It may have come as a surprise to many when Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman virtually fought litigation for the last 21 years before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad HC through his "next friend" and got ownership rights over the disputed site.
Can a deity, like a normal human being, fight a legal battle when, as the incarnation of god, he is believed to mitigate the problems of others?
The HC replied in the affirmative. "This court is of the view that place of birth, that is Ram Janmabhumi, is a juristic person. The deity also attained divinity like Agni, Vayu, Kedarnath. Asthan is personified as the spirit of divine worshipped as the birthplace of Ram Lala or Lord Ram as a child."
In effect, the ruling means that while Ram Lala, being a deity, enjoys legal rights, but since he is a minor he would be allowed to be represented in court through his guardian or next friend.
Well, in the Indian judicial system, deities have always been regarded as legal entities who could fight their case through the trustees or managing board in charge of the temple in which they are worshipped by devotees.
If Ram Lala fought his case in Lucknow, even Kashi Vishwanath of Varanasi had done so in the Supreme Court when the UP government enacted the Sri Kashi Vishwanath Temple Act, 1983 for better management of the ancient temple.
The Supreme Court, in Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi, vs State of UP [1997 (4) SCC 606], recognised the right of a deity, though not for the first time, to move court and said, "Properties of endowment vest in the deity, Lord Sri Vishwanath."
It dismissed claim of the priests that they alone had the right to manage the temple on behalf of the deity and said management of the temple by mahant/pandas/archakas did not mean it became their property. It upheld the Act saying it was merely for better management of the temple.
Similarly, in Bihar State Board of Religious Trust vs Ramsubaran Das [1996 SCALE (2) 702], the SC had pointed to ancient revenue records attaching the temple land in the name of the deity. It had said, "That mahants dealt with the properties in their own names does not detract from the fact that the temples were public temples as they would well be said to be dealing with on behalf of the deities to whom the properties are dedicated."
)