Juristic persons in the Indian courts: the idol, the Guru Granth Sahib and the rivers

Every theory of corporate personality is built for the trading company. The Indian material is more interesting, because the entities recognised here have no members, no shareholders and no will of their own — an idol, a scripture, a river. If the group personality theory were right, none of them could be a person at all. They are.

---

The facts. The case concerns the control and worship of a Hindu family idol. The dispute arose within the Mullick family over the worship and location of an idol called Thakur Radha Shamsunderji, together with associated deities, originally installed by Mutty Lal Mullick, a wealthy Hindu of Calcutta, in his family dwelling house.

Mutty Lal died in 1846 leaving a widow, Ranganmoui, and an adopted son, Jadulal. By his will the maintenance and worship of the idol were entrusted to the widow until the adopted son reached the age of twenty. Jadulal on attaining adulthood assumed the management of the worship, kept the deity in the family temple, the Thakurbari, and in 1881 expanded it and built a new worship hall. In 1888 he executed a deed of trust dedicating the Thakurbari and the worship hall to the idol, stating that the idol must remain in the dedicated temple unless another temple of equal or greater value was provided.

After Jadulal's death in 1894 his three sons inherited the estate and the duties of shebait. In 1905 a legal scheme allowed each son to worship the idol in turns — the Pala system. In 1910 and 1911 one of the shebaits moved the idol to his own house for a festival and then during his turn of worship, and when the practice continued in 1917 another shebait objected, arguing that the 1888 deed prohibited any movement of the idol.

The issues. The nature of the shebait's rights and whether he could relocate the idol during his turn; the interpretation of the 1888 deed; whether a Hindu idol has independent legal status which could prevent its relocation without just cause; whether the right to worship could be partitioned; and whether the rights of the women of the family were being protected.

Held.

• A Hindu idol is a juristic entity. It has legal status and can own property, sue and be sued. The court rejected the argument that the idol was mere property that could be disposed of, and emphasised that the idol is not mere property but a spiritual being with legal recognition.
• The shebait is guardian and manager, not owner — responsible for ensuring proper worship and maintenance, the daily rituals of bathing, clothing, feeding and resting the deity being sacred duties.
• Shebaits may divide the right to worship among themselves, and worship by turns is legally valid provided it does not violate the sanctity of the worship.
• The deed created no absolute restriction against moving the idol; it restricted relocation only unless an equal or better Thakurbari was provided, and since temporary relocation for worship was an established custom, temporary removal did not violate it.
• Because internal family disputes could interfere with worship, the court ordered the appointment of a neutral next friend to represent the idol and to protect the rights of the female family members, and directed that a new scheme of worship be framed. The decrees below were set aside and the matter remanded to the High Court, each party bearing its own costs.

Why it matters. The appointment of a next friend is the practical proof of personality. A thing does not need a representative; a person who cannot speak for himself does.

---

The facts. The trustee of a temple sued to recover possession of immovable temple property that had been alienated more than twelve years earlier. The third defendant appealed against the decision in the trustee's favour.

The issue. Whether the suit was barred by limitation — under Article 134, which gave a twelve-year period for recovering possession of immovable property transferred by a trustee, or under Article 144, which allowed adverse possession.

Held. The court applied the Privy Council's decision in Vidya Varuthi v Baluswami Aiyar (1921):

• Hindu trustees are not trustees in the English law sense. The property of a religious institution vests in the deity, not in the trustee, who is merely a manager responsible for proper worship and administration.
• A trustee therefore has no right to alienate temple property permanently; any such alienation is void, and the transferee acquires only what the trustee could transfer, which is nothing more than a temporary managerial right. A permanent lease is still an alienation, and the payment of rent does not change that.
• Article 134 did not apply, because it applies only where the trustee had the legal power to transfer; here he never had it, so the transfer was void.
• Article 144 did not apply either. The deity is legally treated as a perpetual minor; time does not run against it, because it is always under legal protection. The successor trustee may therefore reclaim the property at any time, and there is no deadline for a temple to recover its property.

The court noted that earlier rulings applying Article 144 to such property had been overruled by Vidya Varuthi.

Why it matters. Perpetual minority is the sharpest illustration in Indian law of a legal person whose attributes are entirely constructed. The deity is given a status — minority — precisely so that a rule about time will not run against it.

---

The question, stated by the Court to be of far-reaching consequence: whether the Guru Granth Sahib could be treated as a juristic person; because if it is, it can hold and use properties gifted to it by its followers in charity, by the creation of an endowment for the public good.

The setting. Sikhism grew through the divinity of Guru Nanak and the ten succeeding gurus, and the wealth of their teachings is contained in the Guru Granth Sahib. The last living guru, Guru Gobind Singh, recorded its sanctity and gave it the recognition of a living Guru; thereafter it remained not only a sacred book but was reckoned as a living guru. Donors in the past raised numbers of gurdwaras and gave their wealth in trust to trustees to carry out their objects; where trustees mismanaged or attempted to usurp such trusts, the legislature and the courts stepped in. The Sikh Gurdwaras and Shrines Act 1922 was enacted to meet the situation but did not establish any permanent committee of management, and was replaced by the Sikh Gurdwaras Act 1925, under which this case arose. That Act provided a legal procedure by which gurdwaras and shrines regarded by Sikhs as essential places of worship could be effectively and permanently brought under Sikh control and management.

The dispute. Fifty-six persons of villages in District Patiala petitioned under s. 7(1) of the Act for a declaration that the disputed property was a Sikh Gurdwara, and the State Government published the petition. A composite petition under ss. 8 and 10 challenged the declaration, the objectors claiming the property was a dharamshala and Dera of Udasian owned and managed by them and their predecessors. The Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee claimed it was a Sikh Gurdwara established by Sikhs for worship, in which the Guru Granth Sahib was the only object of worship, and challenged the objectors' locus standi, since under s. 8 objection could be filed only by hereditary office-holders or by twenty or more worshippers. The Tribunal found on their own cross-examination that the objectors used the premises as a residential house, that there was no object of worship there, and that they neither managed it nor performed any public worship; it therefore held they had no locus standi, and the first appeal was dismissed.

Why it matters. The case takes the reasoning about the idol and extends it to a scripture. What is recognised is not an image, and not a group of people, but a text venerated as a living guru — which no theory built for the trading corporation predicts.

---

The High Court of Uttarakhand recognised the personhood of the rivers Ganga and Yamuna and declared them living entities having the status of a legal person.

The reasoning proceeds from attachment rather than from will: all Hindus have deep astha in the rivers Ganga and Yamuna and collectively connect with them; the rivers are central to the existence of half of the Indian population; they have provided physical and spiritual sustenance from time immemorial, and they are connected with the health and well-being of the entire community.

The declaration was made in wide terms: the rivers Ganga and Yamuna, all their tributaries, streams, and every natural flowing water, are declared juristic and legal persons with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person, in order to preserve and conserve the rivers.

---

• As the Indian application in any question on legal personality or the theories of corporate personality. Give one paragraph of the theory and one of the case; do not narrate facts at length.
• The through-line to state. Personality in Indian law has never depended on having a will. The idol is a person because property must vest somewhere and worship must be protected; the deity is a perpetual minor because limitation must not run against it; the rivers are persons because conservation needs a plaintiff. Legal personality is a device, conferred where the law needs a subject of rights, and the entities chosen tell you what the system is trying to protect.
• The theory it fits. These decisions sit comfortably with the fiction and concession theories and with Hohfeld's view that juristic personality is a procedure for working out jural relations; they sit very badly with the group personality theory, which requires a real mind and a real will.