Author: A Surya Prakash
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: October 4, 2010
URL: http://dailypioneer.com/287546/'Next-friend'-helped-Ram-claim-rightful-place.html
Several commentators, who are not clued into
the intricacies of Hindu law, have expressed surprise over the Allahabad High
Court's verdict in the Ayodhya case, especially in regard to the juristic
rights of the deities exercisable through a "next friend" and on
the court's eventual conclusion that Ram Janmabhoomi constitutes the birthplace
of lord Ram. Much of the confusion stems from a lack of understanding of the
fact that a Hindu deity can sue and be sued and that the deity can seek relief
in courts via a "next friend".
Of the four title suits that were decided
by the Allahabad High Court in the Ayodhya case, only one suit filed on behalf
of lord Ram was accepted by the court. All the other suits (filed by Sunni
Central Board of Wakfs and others; Sri Gopal Singh Visharad and Nirmohi Akhara
and Another) were dismissed. In the suit filed on behalf of lord Ram (Bhagwan
Sri Ram Virajman & Ors vs Sri Rajendra Singh & Ors - OOS No. 5 of
1989), lord Ram was the first plaintiff (Bhagwan Sri Ram Virajman), the second
plaintiff was Sthan Sri Ram Janma Bhumi, Ayodhya (the place known as Ram Janmabhoomi),
and the third plaintiff was Deoki Nandan Agarwal, a retired judge who became
the "next friend" of the deities in 1989. Following Agarwal's demise,
the baton passed on to TP Verma and then on to Trilokinath Pandey, who was
appointed the "next friend" of the deities by the Supreme Court.
KN Bhat, former Additional Solicitor-General
who represented lord Ram and the Janmasthan - acting through the "next
friend" Pandey, argued that a Hindu deity is a juristic person who can
sue and be sued and can possess properties and that this is well established
through judgements of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court; that the Janmasthan
is itself a deity; and that the suit is not barred by limitation because the
deity (lord Ram) is in the position of a perpetual minor. The final outcome
of the case depended substantially on whether the court accepted these averments
made on behalf of the plaintiffs.
Quoting from Mukherjea's Hindu Law of Religious
and Charitable Trusts, the plaint said lord Ram was a "juristic entity"
with a juridical status: "Its (the deity's) interests are attended to
by the person who has the deity in his charge and who in law is its manager,
with all the powers which would…be given to the manager of the estate
of an infant heir. This doctrine…is firmly established." Such a
deity, deemed to be a perpetual minor, can sue through a "next friend"
appointed by the courts.
As regards lord Ram's place of birth, the
contention was that Sthan Sri Ram Janmabhoomi (the place itself) was an object
of worship as a deity by the devotees of lord Ram and it personified the spirit
of the Divine. The Sthan (the place) was thus deified and had a juridical
personality of its own even before the construction of the temple and the
installation of the idol of lord Ram. According to the faith of the devotees,
lord Ram resides at this place and can be experienced by those who offer prayers
there. An idol is not necessary for invoking the divine spirit. Other examples
of places sanctified by belief, even though there is no idol, are Kedarnath,
Vaishno Devi and Gaya.
The plaint also quoted extensively from the
Gazetteers to establish the fact that Hindu belief in regard to lord Ram's
birthplace had been acknowledged by many authorities over several centuries.
The evidence adduced on behalf of these plaintiffs included Ajudhia in Historical
Sketch of Tehsil Faizabad by P Carnegy, Officiating Commissioner and Settlement
Officer. Carnegy states that Janmasthan marks the place where Sri Ramchandra
was born, and adds that "Ajudhia (Ayodhya) is to the Hindu, what Macca
is to the Mohomedan, Jerusalem to the Jews….." These Gazetteers,
written by British officers, are seen as having considerable evidentiary value.
The court upheld these contentions. It said
that lord Ram and Ram Janmabhoomi, the place of his birth, were juristic persons
and that the "next friend" of the deities was entitled to represent
them. It said that the suit filed on behalf of the deities was not barred
by limitation and that the premises in question (or any part thereof) is by
tradition, belief and faith the birthplace of lord Ram. Justice Agarwal said
that the area covered by the central dome of the disputed structure "being
the deity of Bhagwan Ram Janamsthan and place of birth of lord Ram as per
faith and belief of the Hindus, belongs to plaintiffs (Suit 5) and shall not
be obstructed or interfered in any manner". Justice Sharma also concluded
that lord Ram's place of birth was a juristic person and a deity and that
the Archaeological Survey of India had proved that the disputed structure
was built after demolition of a "massive Hindu religious structure".
Justice SU Khan also opined that Hindus treated/believed that the birthplace
of lord Ram is situated in that area and granted the place where at present
the idol is kept in a makeshift temple.
In his judgement, Justice DV Sharma said he
agreed with Bhat's argument that the deities "are like infants"
and they are juristic entities and have juridical status. He said an idol
is a juristic person. "It is not a property that can be shifted to another
place." One of the contentions of the defendants was that the deities
could not have a special status because their pran pratishtha was not done.
Justice Sharma rejected this argument, saying, "They were properly worshipped
for the last many decades." As regards the birthplace of lord Ram, the
plaintiffs had contended that the Janmasthan is "an indestructible and
immoveable deity" who has existed throughout ages. The judge rejected
the Muslim claim of adverse possession and said such a claim can be made in
respect of properties dedicated to a deity but not where "the property
itself is the deity".
Given the eventual outcome of this long-drawn
dispute, devotees of lord Ram owe a debt of gratitude to Deoki Nandan Agarwal,
whose efforts from 1989, when he became the "next friend", have
in many ways clinched the issue in favour of lord Ram and Ram Janmabhoomi.
