Why Hindu Holy Gods In UP Are Legally Worthless?
1. Legal Status of Hindu Deities in India
Under Indian law, Hindu gods are treated as juristic persons.
This means they can hold property, sue, and be sued.
They cannot act independently; they are represented by human agents, called shebaits, mahants, or next friends.
This principle comes from historical judicial decisions, recognizing deities as legal persons for administrative and property purposes.
Key case:
Iswar Sridhar Jiru v. Jahor Lal Mukhopadhya (AIR 1945 Cal 268)
The Calcutta High Court held that an idol can hold property and be represented in court through human managers.
2. Deities Can Sue and Be Sued
Courts have allowed lawsuits to be filed in the name of deities to protect temple property or rights.
The deity acts through a “next friend” or manager who represents its interests in legal proceedings.
Example:
M. Siddiq (Deceased) through LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors. (Ayodhya case, Supreme Court, 2019)
The Supreme Court recognized Ram Lalla (infant deity) as a juristic person.
The deity was allowed to be represented in court, and the verdict awarded property rights in its favor.
Practical implication:
The deity’s legal rights exist only if represented by competent human agents.
Without managers, the deity cannot independently enforce its rights.
3. Limitations of Deity’s Legal Status
(A) Dependence on Human Managers
The deity’s interests depend entirely on trustworthy shebaits or trustees.
If human representatives are negligent, corrupt, or removed, the deity’s legal rights may not be effectively protected.
Case:
Sarangadeva Periya Matam v. Ramaswami Goundar (AIR 1966 SC 1603)
Recognized deity as juristic person but emphasized management through human agents.
(B) Vulnerable to State Regulation
The state can regulate temple property under Articles 25(2) and 26 of the Constitution.
Regulation applies to secular/economic matters, but not to essential religious practices.
Case:
The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Shri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar (Shirur Mutt), AIR 1954 SC 282
The Supreme Court held that the State can supervise administration of temples, while protecting religious rights.
Practical implication:
State-appointed trustees or regulations can change management and affect property control, even though the deity remains legally recognized.
(C) Limitations of “Perpetual Minor” Fiction
Some courts historically treated deities as perpetual minors, limiting their ability to act.
But doctrines like limitation and adverse possession can operate against temple property in some circumstances.
Case:
Rai Sahib Dr. Gurdittamal Kapur v. Mahant Amar Das (1965 AIR 1966)
Temple property could be affected by adverse possession or limitation despite being dedicated to a deity.
(D) Real-life UP Example – Banke Bihari Temple
Uttar Pradesh recently enacted an ordinance to create a government-appointed trust for the Banke Bihari temple (Vrindavan).
Petitions were filed on behalf of the deity, questioning state interference in management.
Shows the deity is legally recognized, but practical control is subject to state regulation and human managers.
4. Summary Table of Legal Position
| Aspect | Legal Principle | Key Case | Observation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deity as juristic person | Can hold property, sue, be sued | Iswar Sridhar Jiru v. Jahor Lal Mukhopadhya (1945) | Only through human representation |
| Representation | Acts through shebaits/next-friends | Sarangadeva Periya Matam v. Ramaswami Goundar (1966) | Legal rights depend on human managers |
| State regulation | State can supervise administration | Shirur Mutt (1954) | Secular management can be altered, religious practices protected |
| Limitation / Adverse possession | Temple property can be challenged | Rai Sahib Dr. Gurdittamal Kapur v. Mahant Amar Das (1965) | Not absolute; depends on fact-specific circumstances |
| Deity as litigant | Can be party in court | M. Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das (2019) | Courts recognize deity’s rights if properly represented |
5. Conclusion
Hindu gods in India are legally recognized as juristic persons.
They can hold property, sue, and be sued through human representatives.
Their rights are not absolute: they rely on shebaits/managers and are subject to state regulation, limitation, and adverse possession.
In Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere, people sometimes describe deities as “legally worthless” because practical enforcement of their rights is limited, not because the law denies their existence.
✅ Bottom line: Law recognizes the deity; law does not make the deity self-enforcing. Human agency and state regulations determine how effectively those rights are exercised.
RELATED Blog
0 comments