News Link from BBC : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7132124.stm
| Last Updated: Friday, 7 December 2007, 09:08 GMT 
| 
E-mail this to a friend | 
Printable version | |---|---|
| |---|
|
Hindu gods get summons from court
| |---| |
|
By Amarnath Tewary Patna
| 
|
The gods have many temples in their name Pic: Vivek Raj
| |---| **A judge in India has summoned two Hindu gods, Ram and Hanuman, to help resolve a property dispute.**Judge Sunil Kumar Singh in the eastern state of Jharkhand has issued adverts in newspapers asking the gods to “appear before the court personally”. The gods have been asked to appear before the court on Tuesday, after the judge said that letters addressed to them had gone unanswered. Ram and Hanuman are among the most popular Indian Hindu gods. Judge Singh presides in a “fast track” court - designed to resolve disputes quickly - in the city of Dhanbad. The dispute is now 20 years old and revolves around the ownership of a 1.4 acre plot of land housing two temples. | |
You failed to appear in the court despite notices sent by a peon and post 
Judge Sunil Kumar Singh in letter to Lord Ram and Hanuman
| |---|---| The deities of Ram and Hanuman, the monkey god, are worshipped at the two temples on the land. Temple priest Manmohan Pathak claims the land belongs to him. Locals say it belongs to the two deities. The two sides first went to court in 1987. A few years ago, the dispute was settled in favour of the locals. Then Mr Pathak challenged the verdict in a fast track court. Gift Judge Singh sent out two notices to the deities, but they were returned as the addresses were found to be “incomplete”. |
Local say the temple belongs to the gods Pic: Mahadeo Sen
| | |---| This prompted him to put out adverts in local newspapers summoning the gods. “You failed to appear in court despite notices sent by a peon and later through registered post. You are herby directed to appear before the court personally”, Judge Singh’s notice said. The two Hindu gods have been summoned as the defence claimed that they were owners of the disputed land. “Since the land has been donated to the gods, it is necessary to make them a party to the case,” local lawyer Bijan Rawani said. Mr Pathak said the land was given to his grandfather by a former local king. |
|---|
Comments
Just thought of sharing this piece of information, although I totally agree that the above mentioned judgment is absurd.
another point about oaths- there are cases where people (in tribunals or other bodies) swear by their 'honour and conscience' an leave god out of the whole business
Please don't assume judges in our country are total fools
Please read further: http://www.jstor.org/pss/4515223 or do google searches. Juristic personality of Hindu idols is often a project topic in jurisprudence/personal law courses in law schools. Certainly was the case in NLS, Bangalore
with regards to constitution, it recognises god and that is why in legislative assemblies and parliament you have to swear in the name of god/solemnly affirm , even if you are the number 1 atheist of this country.
we have hindu laws and muslim laws which are totally based on religion and are supported by judicial pronouncements.
for further information I am citing some apex court judgments..
Yogendra Nath Naskar vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 1969 AIR 1089,
Property of the Gods, Devaswam, means whatever is abandoned for Gods, for purposes of sacrifice and the like, because ownership in the primary sense, as showing the relationship between the owner and the property owned, is impossible of application, to Gods". Thus, according to the texts, the Gods have no beneficial enjoyment of the properties, and they can be described as their owners only in a figurative sense (Gaunartha). The correct legal position is that the idol as representing and embodying the spiritual purpose of the donor is the juristic person recognised by law and in this juristic person the dedicated property vests. As observed by Mr. Justice B. K. Mukherjea: "With regard to Debutter, the position seems to be somewhat different. What is personified here, is not the entire property which is dedicated to the deity but the deity itself which is the central part of the foundation and stands as the material symbol and embodiment of the pious purpose which the dedicator has in view. "The dedication to deity", said Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Bhupati v. Ramlal(1) "is nothing but a compendious expression of the pious purpose for which the dedication is designed". It is not only a compendious expression but a material embodiment of the pious purpose and though there is difficulty in holding that property can reside in the aim or purpose itself, it would be quite consistent with sound principles of Jurisprudence to say that a material object which represents or symbolises a particular purpose can be given the status of a legal person, and regarded as owner of the property which is dedicated to it."(2) The legal position is comparable in many respects to the, development in Roman Law. So far as charitable endowment is concerned Roman Law-as later developed recognised two kinds of juristic persons. One was a corporation or aggregate of persons which owed its juristic personality to State sanction. A private person might make over property by way of gift or legacy to a corporation already in existence and might at the same time prescribe the particular purpose for which the property was to be employed e.g. feeding the poor or giving relief to- the poor distressed. The recipient corporate would be in a position of a trustee and would be legally bound to spend the funds for the particular purpose. The other alternative was for the donor to create an institution or foundation himself. This would be a new juristic person which depended for its origin upon nothing else but the will of the founder provided it was directed to a charitable purpose. The foundation would be the owner of the dedicated property in the eye of law and the administrators would be in the position of trustees bound to carry out the object of the foundation.
The same has been considered and accepted again in a recent judgment of the apex court in teh matter of Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak vs Shri Som Nath Dass & Ors on 29 March, 2000.