Not just Gods, even animals and rivers
In March, 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared that rivers, Ganga and Yamuna, would be legally treated as “living people,” and enjoy “all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person”.
In May 2019, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the “entire animal kingdom” has a “distinct legal persona with corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person”. The verdict was in response to a petition filed by those convicted of unlawfully exporting cows from Haryana. The conviction was upheld.
No fundamental rights
However, in September 2018, Justice Chandrachud of India’s Supreme Court said that while a deity or an idol can own property and have other legal rights, but it cannot granted fundamental rights or other constitutional rights that human beings enjoy.
This was in a case where appellants were opposing the entry of women into the Sabarimala temple in Kerala, where the presiding deity is believed to be celibate. The appeal was turned down and women were allowed to enter.
Back to Ayodhya title dispute
So in the case between those who want a temple for Lord Rama in Ayodhya and those who want to restore a demolished mosque, one of the parties to the case is Lord Rama himself— called Ram Lalla Virajman in the particular case.
Representing the deity in the title dispute over the 2.7 acre land in Ayodhya, is Trilok Nath Pandey whose role is called the shebait— the person who can act on behalf of the deity or idol. It’s usually the temple priest or a trust managing the temple.
Interestingly, in the Ayodhya dispute, some of Lord Rama’s devotees are arguing against Him. The Nirmohi Akhara is a math (a monastery) for ascetic devotees of Lord Rama. The Akhara claims to be existence since at least 1400 AD, according to some accounts, and that it has been managing the temple much before the construction of the mosque. With the current appeal at the Supreme Court, the Akhara wants the management and control of the temple back in its hands. For that, the Court has to first agree that a temple can be built there.
The Akhara has argued against Gopal Singh Visharad— an individual who moved the Faizabad court in 1950 demanding his right to worship at the disputed site saying his ancestors had been doing so before the mosque was established.
One part of the clash, therefore, is between the rights of a deity and his birthplace. All eyes will now be on the verdict of the Supreme Court and the precedents it sets for future disputes like this.
