Ayodhya Case: Ramlala is a minor in the eyes of law, God has rights like common citizen: The trial of the ownership case on Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi is in the final stages. In this case, apart from the other parties, a separate case has been filed on behalf of Ramlala Virajaman and Janmasthana, claiming ownership of the birthplace. In the case, both have been prosecuted on behalf of a close friend, describing them as different gods and judicial persons.
The entire emphasis of the Hindu side is on proving both to be a deity and a judicial person, while the Muslim side is opposed to considering the birthplace as a deity and a separate judicial person. In this case, political, religious and socially sensitive, it is important to consider the legal status of the deity in view of the competing claims being made from both sides.
In the eyes of the law, the idol ie Hindu deity is considered a judicial person and gets all the same rights as a living person. But the biggest feature in relation to the deity is also that the deities are always minor in the eyes of the law. Due to the deity being a minor, the rules regarding the property of a normal adult person are different from the rules applicable to his property.
God minor in the eyes of law
After many decisions of the Supreme Court, it is a settled principle of law that gods are considered to be minor. This is because, just as a child cannot make decisions about himself, in the same way, the gods themselves cannot see their own interests, instead someone else sees their interests like close friends. The law states that a minor cannot be evicted from property under any agreement and such agreement does not apply to a minor.
Timeline principle not applicable to the deity
In this litigation, it has been argued by the Hindu side that the principle of time limit will not apply to the deity nor can an adverse possession claim be claimed against the deity. He says that when the deity cannot be removed then how can there be a claim of adverse possession. Although the Muslim side argues that the principle of time limit and adverse possession will also be applicable to the property of the deity, but the perusal is from the Hindu side to declare the birthplace as the deity and judicial person.
Birthplace god in itself
The Hindu side says that here the matter is not about the property of the deity, but of the deity. The birthplace is a deity in itself, how can one claim possession or adverse possession over a deity. This case has come to a special status with the Hindu side giving the birthplace the status of deity and judicial person. During the debate, the Muslim side had said that the place has been deliberately made a deity and judicial person so that all other parties have rights over the land and the principle of time limit and adverse possession is not applicable in the case.
Birthplace god and judicial person
Let us tell that in this case, two of the three judges of Allahabad High Court have held that the birthplace is a deity and a judicial person. The idol of the deity, Ramlala, is considered a minor and a judicial person by the three judges because the law is fixed in this regard. Now the Supreme Court has to decide whether it considers the birthplace as a separate judicial person and deity and if it believes then what rights will it have.
No tenancy rights
The decision of Jagannath vs Board of Revenue of Rajasthan High Court on the property and rights of the deity can be seen in which the High Court said that the land related to the case belongs to the deity who is a minor and judicial person, according to the law, no matter what the person wants. Why the time has not passed against the deity cannot get the right of tenancy or sub-tenancy on that land.