Ram Temple graft case concerns assets of a ‘juristic person’, Pg10

Key Highlights:

• The Ram Temple embezzlement case involves allegations of misappropriation of donations made to the deity.
• A Hindu deity is legally considered a 'juristic person' and is afforded protection similar to a 'minor' in law.
• Judicial decisions, including those by the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, affirm a deity's capacity to hold property.
• Donations by devotees are considered gifts made directly to the deity, signifying an expression of piety.

Detailed Insights:

• The legal status of a deity as a 'juristic person' allows it to own property and receive gifts in its own name.
• The Supreme Court in the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple case ruled that donations belong strictly to the deity.
• The Privy Council in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal v. Balusami Ayyar and Others (1921) established that gifts are made to deities eo nomine.
• While the deity owns the property in an "ideal sense," a human agency, such as a shebait or mahant, manages its physical possession.
• The Supreme Court in Bishwanath and Others v. Sri Thakur Radhaballabhji (1967) declared a deity to be in the legal position of a minor, requiring protection.
• The Income Tax Act also recognizes a Hindu deity as an 'individual' for assessment purposes, as established in Yogendra Nath Naskar versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Calcutta (1969).

Key Concepts Involved:

• Juristic Person: An entity, such as a deity, recognized by law as having rights and duties, capable of owning property.
• Minor in Law: A legal status affording special protection, applied to deities due to their inability to manage their own affairs.
• Shebait/Mahant: A human manager or custodian of a temple and its properties, acting on behalf of the deity.