Whether the law confers artificial personality on idols, mosques and animals?

1. Legal Status of
Idol and Mosque

2. • Idol is a juristic person.
• It can hold property. The property of a temple and
that of the idol vests in the idol itself.
• Its position is like that of a minor because the pujari
acts as a guardian to look after the interests of the
idol.

3. Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna
Kumar Mullick (Privy Council 1925): An
idol is a juristic person. It has a right to
be represented by a disinterested next
friend to be appointed by the court to
put up its point of view.

4. Yogendranath Naskar v. Commissioner
of Income Tax (1969 Supreme Court):
An idol is a juristic person capable of
holding property and of being taxed
through shebait who is entrusted with
the possession and management of
the property.

5. The Lahore High Court held that a
mosque is a juristic person but this
was overruled by the Privy Council
stating that a mosque was not a
juristic person. There is no analogy
between a building dedicated as a
place of prayer in Muslims and
individual deities of Hindu religion.

6. Siromani Gurudwara Prabhandak
Committee v. Somnath Das (Supreme
Court 2000)
• ‘Guru Granth Sahib’, the holy Granth of Sikhs
is a legal person.
• Sikhs have the same regard and respect for
Guru Granth Sahib as Hindus have for an idol.
• Gurudwara and Guru Granth Sahib are not
two separate entities. The existence of
Gurudwara is because of the installation of
the Guru Granth Sahib which is its nucleus.

7. • Guru Granth Sahib is treated and worshipped as
‘Guru’ by the Sikh community and it is considered
as the heart and soul of the Gurudwara.
• It was clarified that Guru Granth Sahib stands on
altogether different footings than the Holy Books
of other religions, namely, the Quran, the Bible
and the Bhagwat Gita, because the latter are not
treated as legal persons.
Siromani Gurudwara Prabhandak
Committee v. Somnath Das (Supreme
Court 2000)

8. Legal Status of
Animals
• They are mere objects of rights and duties but
are never subjects of them.
• Their interests are not recognized by law.
• That is why, they are not legal persons.

9. The law seeks to protect animals in 2 ways:
1) Cruelty to animals is an offence.
2) A trust for the benefit of a particular class of
animals as opposed to one for an individual
animal, is valid and enforceable as a public
and charitable for example, a trust for
maintenance of a home for stray dogs or
broken horses.

10. So do the above legal protections
mean that animals have rights and we
human beings have duties towards
them????
“Of course not!!!!”: Uncle Salmond
Salmond said that these are not duties towards animals,
they are in fact duties towards the society. The society has
an interest in the protection and well being of animals.

11. Do animals have duties ?
• In the past, animals were liable to
punishments.
• But under the modern law, masters are liable
for wrongs caused by their animal or pet for
negligence in not keeping their pet within
control.
• Thus, animal have no duties.