SY.

LLB – A

Roll No. 58
Name: Shekhar Atul Panse
Subject: Jurisprudence
Topic:Concept of non-juristic personality in India
 Concept of non-juristic personality in India

Introduction
A juristic person is either a natural person in the sense of a human being of the requisite
capacity or an entity created by the law which includes an incorporated body and
special artificial being created by legislation and vested with the capacity to sue and be
sued.
God as non-juridical person
The SC, in Ayodha case judgement, held:

“God of 'Supreme Being' may be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent but has no
juristic personality, but an idol, worshiped by believers as a physical incarnation of
God, is a juristic personality.

Legal personality is not conferred on the Supreme Being. The Supreme Being has no
physical presence for it is understood to be omnipresent the very ground of being itself.
The court does not counter legal personality on divinity.

Divinity in Hindu philosophy is seamless, universal and infinite. Divinity pervades

every aspect of the universe. The attributes of divinity defy description and furnish the
fundamental basis for not defining it with reference to boundaries-physical or legal, For
this reason that it is omnipresent, it would be impossible to distinguish where one legal
entity ends and the next begins.

The idea of a legal person is premised on the need to identify the subjects of the legal
system. An omnipresent (God or Supreme Being) being is incapable of being identified
or delineated in any manner meaningful to the law and no identifiable legal subject
could emerge.

The narrow confines of the law are ill suited to engage in such an exercise (delineating
boundaries of a God who is omnipresent) and it is for this reason that the law has
steered clear from adopting the approach.

In Hinduism, physical manifestation of the Supreme Being exists in the form of idols to
allow worshippers to experience a shapeless being. The idol is the representation of the
Supreme Being. The idol, by possessing physical form, is identifiable.
To provide courts with a conceptual framework within which they could analyse and
practically adjudicate upon disputes involving competing claims over endowed
properties, courts recognised legal personality of the Hindu idol, It was a legal
innovation necessitated by historical circumstances, the gap in the existing law and by
considering convenience.", the SC said.

Society as a non-juristic person:

The SC in a famous decision adjudged that a society was not a juristic person in the
context that it could not be granted a letter of administration for the purpose of
administration of estate of a testator:

Illachi Devi (D) And Ors vs Jain Society

Facts:

Ratan Lal executed Will bequeathing his estate to Jain Society. The Society is
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. On 4th March, 1978, he died.
The Society submitted an application before the Court for grant of Letter of
Administration in pursuance of Will executed by late Ratan Lal. The petition was
contested by appellant and on her death by her legal representatives, stating that petition
filed by the Respondent-Society is not maintainable in view of Section 236 of the Act.
The High Court, being of the view that it is permissible under Section 236 of the Act to
grant Letter of Administration in favour of the Society, rejected the objection of the
appellant and, it is in this way, the appellants are before us by means of an SLP.

The SC first considered the legal provisions of the Act surrounding the case:

Section 218: If the deceased has died intestate administration of his estate may be
granted to any person who, according to the rules for the distribution of the estate
applicable in the case of such deceased, would be entitled to the whole or any part of
such deceased's estate. When several such persons apply for such administration, it shall
be in the discretion of the Court to grant it to any one or more of them.

Section 236: Letter of administration cannot be granted to any person who is a minor
or is of unsound mind, nor to any association of individuals unless it is a company
which satisfies the conditions prescribed by rules to be made by notification in the
Official Gazette, by the State Government, on this behalf.
The court took note of the fact that the society was not a company as it was not a body
corporate that had to undertake compulsory registration under the relevant company law
statute:

“A society is an association of persons. It may or may not be registered under the

Societies Registration Act. Since the aforementioned provisions were inserted in
Sections 223 and 236 of the Act, the Courts have held that no Administration can be
granted in favour of a society. Such association of persons would suffer from certain
disabilities as there would then possibly be competing and conflicting voices with no
single line of command for carrying out the wishes of the testator.

A society registered under the provisions of Act 21 of 1860 does not cease to be an
association of individuals by reason of such registration. Registration under the
aforesaid Act only confers on it certain privileges which are not enjoyed by other
associations of individuals.”

The SC elaborated further to state that no society could sue or be sued in its own name,
as the Societies Registration Act provides any legal action by or against the society to
be undertaken only by or in the name of its president, chairman, secretary or any other
as nominated per its bye-laws, and that the mere fact of registration of a Society under
the Societies Registration Act will not make the said Society distinct from association of
persons.

The court found that the definition of the company, as published under the rules in
pursuance of Sec. 236 as well as the Section 2(7) of the Company law did not cover
society / AOP, and because it was not a body corporate that it could not, consequently,
be termed as a juristic person:

“The law for the purpose of grant of a probate or Letter of Administration recognizes
only a juristic person and not mere conglomeration of persons or a body which does not
have any statutory recognition as a juristic person, as in the case of a society, whether or
not registered.”

The SC held the society, even when it is registered, is not possessed of certain
characteristics. Moreover, a society whether registered or unregistered, may not be
prosecuted in criminal court, nor is it capable of ownership of any property or of suing
or being sued in its own name:
“Inasmuch as a company enjoys an identity distinct from its original shareholders,
whereas the society is undistinguishable, in some aspects, from its own members, that
would qualify as a material distinction, which prevents societies from obtaining letters
of administration.”

SC concluded by remitting the case back to the HC allowing the Society to nominate
authorized members to make an application to act as administrator who will be
accountable to the court.

Conclusion
There is no legal definition of the concept. The concept of a non-juristic person is
ever-evolving by way of legal precedents and newer judgments.
Webliography:
https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/juristic-person/

https://www.sci.gov.in/pdf/JUD_2.pdf

https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/20808.pdf