Explained: Why a Hindu deity is legally a 'juristic person' and a 'minor'

The Ram Temple embezzlement case has brought attention to a unique legal concept: a Hindu deity is considered a 'juristic person' who is a minor in law. This status means that the deity can own property, but requires a human manager to protect its interests.

Indian courts have long recognised the deity as a legal entity capable of holding property. This principle was established in decisions from the Privy Council (1921) to the Supreme Court judgments in the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple case (2020) and the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple case (2019).

In the Padmanabhaswamy Temple case, the Supreme Court held that donations given by worshippers belong strictly to the deity. The 2020 judgment detailed how Maharaja Marthanda Varma dedicated his kingdom to the deity in the 18th century, reinforcing the deity's status as a separate legal entity.

The Privy Council, in Vidya Varuthi Thirtha Swamigal versus Balusami Ayyar and Others (1921), observed that 'Hindu piety finds expression in gifts to idols and images consecrated and installed in temples.' These gifts are made to the deities eo nomine (in the name of the deity itself), proving the deity's capacity to receive gifts and hold property.

However, courts have recognised that dedicated property vests in the idol only in an 'ideal sense'. Physical possession and management must be handled by a 'human agency' — a manager or shebait. But this person is only a manager; ownership rests entirely with the deity.

Justice B.K. Mukherjea, in the 1951 case Angurbala Mullick versus Debabrata Mullick, reinforced this: 'In a Hindu religious endowment, the entire ownership of the dedicated property is transferred to the deity or the institution itself as a juristic person, and the shebait or mahant is a mere manager.'

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. 'An idol is in the position of a minor. When a person representing it leaves it in the lurch, a person interested in the worship of the idol can certainly be clothed with an ad hoc power of representation to protect its interest,' the court held.

The Constitution Bench in the Ram Janmabhoomi Temple case described a Hindu idol as the 'material embodiment of a testator's pious purpose'. Even the Income Tax Act recognises a deity as a legal person. In Yogendra Nath Naskar versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Calcutta (1969), the Supreme Court termed a Hindu deity as an 'individual' for tax assessment purposes, stating that while God is not a person in law, the deity as a symbol of a donor's purpose can be a legal person.

This legal framework explains why the Ram Temple trust must account for donations as property belonging to the deity, and any alleged embezzlement involves misappropriation of a juristic person's funds, with the deity considered a minor requiring protection.