CONSTITUTIONAL LAW- II PROJECT

MONSOON SEMESTER 2023-2024

INTERNAL ASSESSMENT

TOPIC: AYODHYA AND BEYOND: A LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL

ANALYSIS

Name: Prangana Singh

Email Id: prangana222101@nujs.edu
Id No: 222101
Section: B
Word Count (excluding footnotes and biography): 3275

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................3

II. THE EVOLUTION OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY..................................................................5

III. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF DEITIES AS JURISTIC PERSONS IN INDIA...............................6

IV. UNVEILING FLAWS AND ARTICLE 14 VIOLATIONS..........................................................7

V. BALANCING FAITH AND LAW.........................................................................................11

VI. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................12

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................13

2|Page
 ABSTRACT

The 2019 Ayodhya judgment, granting juristic status to the idol of Ram Lalla, ‘has sparked a
national conversation on minority rights and constitutional interpretation
in India. This paper investigates the possible effects of this landmark ruling on similar
disputes and minority rights established in the Indian Constitution. The Ayodhya land
dispute, a complex issue with historical, legal, and social dimensions, has been the primary
point of contention since a very long time. The paper examines the concept of juristic
personality, its origins, rights, duties, and its relevance in the Indian context. Additionally, it
examines how the Ayodhya ruling influenced minority rights, highlighting the necessity of
preserving secular ideals along with fair and impartial judgments. Finally, it encourages for
inclusive dispute resolution approaches to promote respect and understanding among
communities, consequently preserving minority rights and upholding the credibility of the
legal system in India.’

3|Page
 I. INTRODUCTION

The 2019 Ayodhya judgment, which granted juristic status to the idol of Ram Lalla, has
sparked a significant debate in India regarding the rights of religious minorities and the
interpretation of constitutional principles. 1 This landmark judgment has raised concerns about
its potential implications for similar disputes involving religious sentiments and the need to
safeguard minority rights enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

The Ayodhya land dispute,“centered around a 1500 square yard plot in Ayodhya, Uttar
Pradesh, had been a longstanding and contentious issue in India, embodying a complex
interplay of religious, social, political, and legal dimensions. 2 The dispute traced its roots
back to the 16th century when the Babri Masjid, a mosque, was constructed on a site believed
by Hindus to be the birthplace of Lord Rama, a central deity in Hindu mythology. 3 Over the
centuries, this site has been a flashpoint for tensions between Hindu and Muslim
communities, culminating in the mosque's destruction by Hindu activists in 1992, leading to
widespread violence.4

The legal battle over the ownership of the disputed land began in the post-independence era,
with various parties claiming rights to the site. The case went through multiple courts,
eventually reaching the Allahabad High Court, which in 2010, based on the premise that idol
and the birthplace of Lord Ram were juristic entities, ruled for a three-way division of the
land among the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara, and the deity Ram Lalla.5 However,
this decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of India, which, after a series of hearings
and mediation attempts, delivered its historic judgment on November 9, 2019.6”

In its judgment, the Supreme Court directed the construction of a temple for Lord Ram at the
disputed site, while also allocating an alternative five-acre plot for the construction of a
mosque by utilizing its power under Section 142 of the Indian Constitution. 7 While the Court
ruled that the Ram Janmabhoomi itself does not possess juristic personality, it recognized
1
M Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1420.
2
Supreme Court Observer,“History of the Ayodhya title dispute: A timeline, January 23, 2024, available at:
History of the Ayodhya title dispute: A timeline - Supreme Court Observer (scobserver.in) (Last visited on
March 1, 2024).
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
The Hindu, Ayodhya verdict: decoding Allahabad HC’s nine-year-old majority judgment under challenge in
SC, November 09, 2019, available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ayodhya-verdict-decoding-
allahabad-hcs-nine-year-old-majority-judgment-under-challenge-in-sc/article29929197.ece (Last visited on
March 1, 2024).”
6
Id.
7
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.142.

4|Page
Ram Lalla, the deity, as a juristic person with legal rights. This decision raises intriguing
questions about the Court ’s underlying rationale and the factors influencing its
determination.

Thus, in order to delve deeper into this matter, the paper is structured as follows: Part I
introduces the topic, and provides a brief overview of the dispute. While Part II talks about
the inception of juristic personality and its rights and duties, Part III of the paper examines
the recognition of deities as juristic personalities in India. While Part IV talks about the
fallacies of the Ayodhya judgment and its violation of the principles of Article 14, Part V
talks about the possible ramifications of the judgment and the need for a balance to be struck
in order to protect the rights of the minorities, and finally in the Part VI, the author concludes
the paper, while sharing their own perspective and plausible solutions.

II. THE EVOLUTION OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY

The concept of juristic personality, an integral component of modern jurisprudence, finds its
roots in the intricate evolution of legal thought and practice, particularly in Europe. 8 The
origins of this concept can be tracked down to Roman private law, where medieval European
rules about corporations were formulated using the concept of persona ficta. This legal
structure was crucial in discerning between the entity and its members, thereby empowering
the corporation to thrive beyond the lifespans of its members by treating the corporation as an
artificial person with legal attributes similar to those of a natural person.9

The notion of a corporation touched on a fundamental challenge: conceptualizing an entity

distinct from its constituent members yet able to exist perpetually. 10 This challenge demanded
the creation of a framework of perpetual legal order, which would give legal force to an
organization (such as a company or juristic person) that was believed to be enduring despite
changes in its composition over the years.11

The evolution of the idea of juristic personality also had an enormous effect on how the
sovereign state was imagined. The states were granted the tag of juristic personality, allowing

8
“Samaradiwakera-Wijesundara, The Fiction of the Juristic Person: Reassessing Personhood in Relation to
People, 186-208, Wits University Press.
9
Id.
10
Rahul Govind, On the Deity as Juristic Personality: The Religious, The Secular And The Nation in The A And
The Nation in The Ayodhya Dispute And The A Dispute And The Ayodhya Judgments (2010 And 2019) , Vol.
33(1), NLSIR, Article 8 (2021).
11
E. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton University Press,
1957).”

5|Page
them to engage in international relations, enter into treaties, and own property, similar to
individuals or corporations. This legal recognition of the state as a perpetual legal entity was
crucial for defining its relationship with other legal entities.

In European legal thought, the 'perpetual minor' concept served as a conceptual tool for
determining the lasting nature of the body politic. This concept allowed for the continuing
existence of earthly institutions such as Churches, Kingdoms, and corporations. 12 By
comparing cities to angels and minors, these entities were considered perpetual and thus
incapable of maturation or aging, unlike natural minors.

This conceptual framework was vital in guaranteeing the perpetual nature of institutions'
rights and properties in the earthly realm. 13 It required the idea of an eternal protector,
represented by the state or the Crown, who would constantly stand for and safeguard the body
politic, which was the perpetual minor.14 Thus, this idea protected certain rights and
properties of the body politic from adverse possession or any other unexpected
circumstances.

Therefore, in the present scenario, the term "juristic person" relates to recognizing an entity
as a legal person while not being a natural person. It is a lawfully admitted artificial construct
having the status of an individual.15

III. LEGAL RECOGNITION OF DEITIES AS JURISTIC PERSONS IN INDIA

The concept of deities as juristic persons in India has a rich history rooted in legal principles
and cultural practices. Originating from the need to distinguish between property rights,
particularly in the context of temples and religious institutions, the legal recognition of deities
as juristic personalities began during British rule in India.16

The Dakor Temple Case of 1887 marked a significant legal precedent, where the Bombay
High Court recognized Hindu idols as juristic subjects with the status of legal persons. 17
Therefore, just like how a corporation is a separate legal entity that can own property
independently from its members, a deity was also allowed to own property and exercise
12
Id.
13
Supra, note 3.
14
Supra, note 3.
15
Leonidas Pitamic, ANALYSIS OF THE NOTION OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY, 10 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235 (1935).
16
The Indian Express, The Lord as a juristic person: What legal rights do deities enjoy, August 05, 2020
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ayodhya-title-suit-lord-ram-the-lord-as-a-juristic-person-what-legal-
rights-do-deities-enjoy-6052442/ ( Last visited on March 2, 2024).
17
Manohar Ganesh Tambekar vs. Lakhmiram Govindram ,1887 SCC OnLine Bom 1.

6|Page
rights like a natural person apart from its worshippers and managers. This idea was further
solidified in the case of Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar, affirming that a deity's
image is a juristic entity capable of receiving gifts and holding property under Hindu law. 18
Moreover, it was established that a Hindu idol possesses juristic status, which gives it the
power to sue and be sued.19 This acknowledgment extends to the idol’s interests and rights,
which are managed by the shebait, the person in charge of the deity, who interprets the idol's
"will" in matters of property and management.20

In the context of tax liability, a Hindu deity falls within the ambit of the word “individual”
under the Income Tax Act, 1961.21 Further, Hindu idols can own property, and thus, the
deity's property can be taxed. The property of a Hindu temple or idol vests in the deity, with
the shebait having the right to possess and manage the estate.22 The primary interest of the
idol is pious worship, which must be protected and preserved. The shebait plays a crucial role
in carrying out the idol's rights and interests, ensuring the performance of rites and services
alongside the management of properties. 23 On this aspect, the Supreme Court clarified that
while idols can possess property, they are representations and symbols, not supernatural
beings with legal personalities.24 However, despite their juristic status, deities cannot be
bearers of fundamental rights.25

However, not every deity is a juristic personality and not every deity is automatically
considered a legal person and thus, given the status of a juristic person. The status of a juristic
person is conferred upon an idol only after its public installation and consecration or pran
pratishtha.26 This legal recognition allows idols to possess rights and obligations, making
them non-human legal entities with recognized rights and duties.

18
“Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar, (1922) 24 BOMLR 629.
19
The Times of India, God is not a juristic person, but an idol is, November 20, 2019, God is not a juristic
person, but idol is, says apex court in Ayodhya case | India News - Times of India (indiatimes.com) ( Last visited
on March 2, 2024).
20
Duff P.W., The personality of an Idol, Vol. 3(1), JSTOR, 20 (1927).
21
The Income Tax Act, 1961.
22
Supra, note 5.
23
Supra, note 2.
24
Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 1969 AIR 1089.
25
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs. The State of Kerala and Ors, (2019) 11 SCC 1.
26
Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 1969 AIR 1089.”

7|Page
 IV. UNVEILING FLAWS AND ARTICLE 14 VIOLATIONS

The Ayodhya judgment by the Supreme Court of India, while striving to resolve a
longstanding dispute, has raised major concerns regarding its approach towards religious
freedoms and the principle of equality established in Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

One of the key flaws of the judgment is that even though the concept of considering a God as
a juristic person is legally recognized, when a lawsuit is brought out in the name of a God, it
inevitably brings inherent biases and prejudices into the Court room. 27 Judges or lawyers who
are believers may struggle to objectively handle cases where a deity is a litigant, as they may
find it challenging to set aside their religious beliefs and sentiments. 28 On the other hand, the
atheists may also find it challenging to accept the idea of treating a deity as a legal entity.
Therefore, this approach could potentially be leveraged to control property ownership and to
stir the sentiments and responses of those involved in the legal proceedings. 29 Such
manipulation could distort the outcome of the case, thus undermining the principles of natural
justice by allowing personal beliefs to interfere with legal proceedings, thereby
compromising fairness.30

Moreover, the Court has relied on English and Roman legal concepts, rather than drawing
from Indian philosophy and legal thought.31 Instead of referring to authoritative works on
Hindu law that explain its evolution and application before colonial times, the Court justified
attributing the status of a juristic personality to Ram Lalla by citing judgments and rulings
from English judges of the colonial era and comparing them to Roman Law. 32 For example,
according to the Mimansa tradition of Hindu law which emphasizes on the rituals and
sacrifices, Gods were considered to be made of sound and therefore could not own property. 33
Moreover, according to ancient Hindu texts like Dharmashashtra, Gods could not accept
endowments and gifts, and they used to be under the control of the shebait.34 Furthermore, the
27
Mayank Jain Parichha, Making Deity A Juridical Person Is Not New In Religio-legal Disputes, THE
OUTLOOK, October 3, 2022, available at https://www.outlookindia.com/national/making-deity-a-juridical-
person-is-not-new-in-religio-legal-disputes-magazine-224979 ( Last visited on March 3, 2024).
28
SK Arun Murthi, Thanks to the Ayodhya Judgment, Faith Rather Than Fact is Driving India's Courts, The
Wire, May 27, 2022, available at https://thewire.in/law/thanks-to-the-ayodhya-judgment-faith-rather-than-fact-
is-driving-indias-courts (Last visited on March 3, 2024).
29
Id.
30
Supra, note 18.
31
M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1420.
32
J Sai Deepak, The Eternity of the Deity, The Open Magazine, November 15, 2019, available at
https://openthemagazine.com/cover-stories/the-eternity-of-the-deity/#google_vignette (Last visited on March 3,
2024).
33
Id.
34
Supra, see note 3.

8|Page
rights of the Brahmin were based on his social status and were unrelated to the property or
legal claims of a worshipping community. 35 These texts also expressed disapproval of temple
priests, thus indicating the absence of the concept of juristic personality. The Court’s
misinterpretation of Hindu beliefs led it to view idols as legal entities solely through the lens
of Roman and English law, overlooking their deeper spiritual significance. 36 Therefore, the
reasoning given by the Court should have been based on Hindu laws, and it was not
reasonable on the Court ’s part to term Ram Lalla as a juristic personality only on the basis of
Roman and English Law.

Another point to be noted is that the Court in the Ayodhya judgment highlighted that for
Hindu deities to have juristic personality, two elements are crucial: a pious purpose behind
the endowment and its legal recognition.37 This legal recognition ensures the deity’s perpetual
rights and protection under the law. Additionally, the Court emphasized that faith and belief
alone cannot establish legal title to property, and conferring juristic personality based solely
on faith would undermine property law. 38 Thus, the Court denied the status of a juristic
personality to Janmasthan. However, the Court ’s self-contradicting decision with Ram Lalla
is perplexing. While the Court denied juristic personality to Janmasthan due to lack of
evidence, it affirmed it for Ram Lalla without requiring the evidence of religious endowment
for a pious purpose, typically required for a juristic personality. 39 Therefore, this decision
appears inconsistent with established legal norms, as it implies that the land itself was
considered a religious endowment for Ram Lalla, despite no explicit record of such
endowment.

Furthermore, the Ayodhya judgment underscores a disparity in the burden of proof placed on
both the sides. While the Court demanded evidence of exclusive possession from the Muslim
side before 1857, it did not impose a similar requirement on the Hindu side, except for
Nirmohi Akhara which was later ousted.40 The Court acknowledged that the mosque was

35
RamaKant Shukla, Ram Janam Bhumi is not a juristic person, LIVE LAW, September 21, 2020, available at
https://www-livelaw-in.nujs.remotlog.com/top-stories/ram-janam-bhumi-is-not-a-juristic-person-149650?
infinitescroll=1 (Last visited on March 3, 2024).
36
Id.
37
M Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1420.
38
M Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1420.
39
“HS Shylendra, God as a Litigant: Examining the Contradictions and Biases of the Ayodhya Verdict,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, November 09, 2020 available at https://www.epw.in/engage/article/god-
litigant-examining-contradictions-and-biases (Last visited on March 2, 2024).”
40
Ujjwal K Chowdhury, Ayodhya Verdict: A Faith- Based Ruling, A Juridical Compromise, NEWS CLICK.
November 10, 2019, available at https://www.newsclick.in/ayodhya-verdict-faith-based-ruling-judicial-
compromise. (Last visited on March 2, 2024).

9|Page
constructed over 450 years ago and that Muslims worshipped there until 1949. 41 However,
despite the acknowledgements, since there was no evidence of exclusive possession by
Muslims before 1857, the Court ruled in favor of the Hindu plaintiffs, who claimed the site
as the birthplace of Ram Lalla.42 Thus, the asymmetry in the burden of proving exclusive
possession for both the sides suggests a bias in favor of the Hindu belief.

The Supreme Court ’s approach in the Ayodhya Judgment reflects a compromise formula akin
to King Solomon’s renowned wisdom in resolving a dispute. 43 In the biblical story, King
suggests dividing a child between two mothers to reveal the true mother’s identity. This
symbolizes the Court ’s aim to achieve peace and harmony. 44 The Court ’s rejection of the
juristic personality of the mosque like a Hindu deity, was based on a 1940 judgment of the
Privy council.45 This judgment highlighted that the legal recognition of immovable property
as a juristic person might jeopardize its status as immovable property, which can have
competing proprietary claims.46 Thus, the Court not only validated the polytheistic character
of Hinduism by endowing the idol of Ram Lalla with legal personality, but it also granted
permission to construct a temple, supervised by a trust, on the site of the Babri Masjid in
order to safeguard the arguments put out by the Hindu community.47

Thus, the judgment violates the principles of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. Article 14
is usually tested on the grounds of Doctrine of reasonable classification. 48 This doctrine says
that any classification made must be based on intelligible differentia that distinguishes
persons or things or puts them together. Moreover, it must also have a rational nexus to the
objective sought to be achieved by the law. 49 Therefore, there was no intelligible differentia
present when the Court classified Ram Lalla as a juristic personality on the basis of physical
manifestation of God and denied the same to the Mosque as it was just a place of worship.

41
M Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1420.
42
SK Arun Murthi, Thanks to the Ayodhya Judgment, Faith Rather Than Fact is Driving India's Courts, The
Wire, May 27, 2022, available at https://thewire.in/law/thanks-to-the-ayodhya-judgment-faith-rather-than-fact-
is-driving-indias-courts (Last visited on March 2, 2024).
43
Deepak Lal, Solomon would have been proud of Ayodhya verdict, Rediff Magazine, Dec 09, 2019 available at
https://www.rediff.com/news/column/solomon-would-have-been-proud-of-ayodhya-verdict/20191209.htm l
(Last visited on March 2, 2024).
44
Supra, see note 23.
45
M Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1420.
46
M Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1420
47
J Tilak, Supreme Court's Explanation for Ruling in Favour of Hindu Parties in Ayodhya, The Wire, November
09, 2019, available at https://thewire.in/law/ayodhya-verdict-supreme-court-judgment (Last visited on March 2,
2024).
48
Simran Vishal Bafna, Doctrine of Reasonable Classification, available at Doctrine of Reasonable Classification
4 Issue 4 International Journal of Law Management & Humanities 2021 (heinonline.org) (Last visited on March
2, 2024).
49
Id.

10 | P a g e
This classification fails to consider that both Ram Lalla and the mosque are revered as sacred
entities in their respective religions. While a mosque may not contain idols or images of
worship, it holds the same sacred significance as temples with idols, based on the faith and
belief of its followers.50 Besides, while a temple without an idol may be seen as merely
consisting of brick and mortar, a mosque is venerated beyond its physical structure due to it
spiritual and religious significance.51 Therefore, the classification of providing the status of
juristic personality is unreasonable and does not have any objective criteria to distinguish
between the two structures. Furthermore, the classification based on the duration of exclusive
possession is also unreasonable because it treats two parties unequally based on the length of
their possession. In the judgment, while the Hindus were favoured on the basis of favored
based on the legal principle of "preponderance of probabilities," which means that their claim
was more likely to be true.52 On the other hand, Muslim parties were required to provide
evidence for their usage of the mosque in the first 330 years of its existence, placing a heavier
burden of proof on them.53 It is akin to two siblings having equal entitlements to an
inheritance, but one is given a larger share simply because they have used the property longer
or are older.54 Therefore, the reasoning applied by the Court is violative of the principles of
Article 14 of the Indian Constitution and Principles of Natural Justice.

V. BALANCING FAITH AND LAW

The construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya has been a significant development since the
Court’s judgment. The establishment of the Shri Ram Janmabhoomi Teerth Kshetra Trust by
the government in February 2020, tasked with constructing and managing the temple, marked
the beginning of this project, which has been estimated to cost ₹1,800 crore, making it the
most expensive religious project in recent years. 55 While the consecration of the temple was
celebrated by many in the recent past, it has also raised concerns among minorities about the
demolition of their places of worship and the implications for their rights under Article 14 of
the Constitution.

50
Union of India vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee & Ors, 1986 SCC (3) 600.
51
Union of India vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee & Ors, 1986 SCC (3) 600.
52
Sudhir Saxena, Supreme Court's Ayodhya Verdict Rests on a Glaring Contradiction, THE WIRE, June 15,
2020, available at https://thewire.in/law/supreme-court-ayodhya-verdict-possession (Last visited on March 2,
2024).
53
Id.
54
Id.
55
Business Line, Ayodhya Ram Mandir: The cost and the funding, January 25, 2024, available at: Ayodhya Ram
mandir: The cost and the funding - The Hindu BusinessLine (Last visited on March 2, 2024).

11 | P a g e
The Ayodhya judgment, which granted juristic status to the idol of Ram Lalla, has raised
significant concerns regarding the rights of religious minorities in India. This decision has set
a precedent that could impact similar disputes, such as the legal battle in Mathura over a
mosque believed to be built on the birthplace of the deity Krishna and the ongoing
controversy in Varanasi regarding the right of Hindus to worship inside a mosque. 56 The
classification of deities as 'juristic persons' and mosques as 'mere places of worship' raises
questions about the rights of minorities in India, especially in light of the possibility of the
Places of Worship Act, which prohibits the conversion of any place of worship as it existed
on the date of independence, being repealed. 57 This could further jeopardize the rights of
Muslims and other minority religions as, if future Court rulings follow the precedent set by
the Ayodhya verdict, granting perpetual ownership to Hindus, minorities will live under
constant fear of their sacred sites being demolished.58 Consequentially, this begs the question
of how such precedents will safeguard the minorities freedom to practice and profess their
religion freely guaranteed by the Article 25 of the Indian Constitution.59

Article 14 obligates the State to provide equality before the law and equal protection of the
laws to all persons within the territory of India, irrespective of religion, race, caste, sex, or
place of birth.60”However, judgments like the Ayodhya case could set a dangerous precedent
for future State actions that violate Article 14. 61 The rise of the Hindu Right and the
promotion of Hindutva ideology have created an environment where secularism in Indian law
is being used to further majoritarian politics. The judgment in the Ayodhya case, if
implemented as law rather than a judicial pronouncement, could violate Article 14 by
promoting majoritarian ideals and discriminating against religious minorities. This has been
accomplished through the promotion of Hindutva ideology, which sees Hinduism not only as
a religion but as a nation and race inherent to India. 62 The BJP-led Central Government has
been the political wing of such Hindutva movement, providing implicit political arm-strength
to the Ram Mandir saga. By having judgements that have no legal backing and are politically
56
“The Indian Express, In Gyanvapi case, the test ahead: Law on places of worship and the challenge it faces,
January 26, 2024, available at https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/gyanvapi-case-the-test-ahead-law-on-
places-of-worship-and-the-challenge-it-faces (Last visited on March 2, 2024).
57
The Places of Worship Act, 1991.
58
Ziya us Salman, The Message the Ram Temple Sends Muslims Like Me, The Time, January 20, 2024, available
at https://time.com/6564244/india-ayodhya-ram-temple-muslims/ (Last visited on March 2, 2024).
59
The Constitution of India, Art. 25.
60
The Constitution of India, Art. 14.
61
Yash Raj Sharma, India’s Ayodhya wakes up to harsh realities after Modi’s Ram temple event, available at
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/2/1/indias-ayodhya-wakes-up-to-harsh-realities-after-modis-ram-
temple-event (Last visited on March 2, 2024).
The Constitution of India, Art. 25.”
62
Jyotirmay Sharma, HINDUTVA: EXPLORING THE IDEA OF HINDU NATIONALISM (2003).

12 | P a g e
motivated and religiously swayed, the Court opened doors for majoritarian governments like
the BJP to not only amass vote banks on bigotry but essentially bypass the ideals of Article
51A of the Indian Constitution which stand as an impediment in creation of a State religion in
India.63

Therefore, the Ayodhya judgment has raised serious concerns about protecting minority rights
in India. It has set a precedent that could have far-reaching implications for similar disputes
and has highlighted the need to safeguard the principles of justice, equity, and secularism
enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

VI. CONCLUSION

“True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” 64

The Ayodhya Judgment has sparked a national conversation about the delicate balance
between legal principles and religious beliefs, highlighting the need to protect the minority
rights while upholding the rule of law. While the concept of juristic personality has a valid
legal basis, its application in cases involving religious sentiments requires careful
consideration by the courts to avoid bias and ensure fairness. In disputes involving religious
sentiments, adopting a harmonious approach goes a long way. 65 For instance, in a dispute
involving two communities, the court should look forward to preserve both, so that no party
feels a sense of victory or defeat over the other. Moreover, to ensure the harmonious
relationships between the communities, the author suggests to move away from the litigation
model by adopting alternate dispute resolving mechanisms like arbitration or mediation.
Furthermore, specialized religious dispute resolution panels consisting of legal experts,
community representatives and religious scholars can be formed to promote mutual and
deeper understanding of the dispute. Thus, by promoting a culture of inclusivity and respect
for all religions, the courts can play a crucial role in ensuring the protection of minority rights
and maintaining the secular fabric of the nation.

VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY

CASES

63
Ratna Kapur, THE 'AYODHYA' CASE: HINDU MAJORITARIANISM AND THE RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS LIBERTY,
Maryland Journal of International Law 29 (2012).
64
Martin Luther King Jr.
65
Supra, note 26.

13 | P a g e
Indian Young Lawyers Association and Ors. vs.The State of Kerala and Ors, 11 SCC 1.........7
M Siddiq vs. Mahant Suresh Das, AIR ONLINE 2019 SC 1420..............................................4
Manohar Ganesh Tambekar vs. Lakhmiram Govindram ,1887 SCC OnLine Bom 1...............6
Union of India vs. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee & Ors, 1986 SCC (3) 600. 10
Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar, (1922) 24 BOMLR 629..........................................7
Yogendra Nath Naskar vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, 1969 AIR 1089..............................7

STATUTES

The Income Tax Act, 1961.........................................................................................................7

The Places of Worship Act, 1991.............................................................................................12

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

The Constitution of India, 1950, Art.142...................................................................................4

The Constitution of India, Art. 14............................................................................................12
The Constitution of India, Art. 25............................................................................................12

ONLINE SOURCES

Business Line, Ayodhya Ram Mandir: The cost and the funding, January 25, 2024, available
at: Ayodhya Ram mandir: The cost and the funding - The Hindu BusinessLine (Last
visited on March 2, 2024)....................................................................................................11
Deepak Lal, Solomon would have been proud of Ayodhya verdict, Rediff Magazine, Dec 09,
2019 available at https://www.rediff.com/news/column/solomon-would-have-been-proud-
of-ayodhya-verdict/20191209.html (Last visited on March 2, 2024)..................................10
HS Shylendra, God as a Litigant: Examining the Contradictions and Biases of the Ayodhya
Verdict, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, November 09, 2020 available at
https://www.epw.in/engage/article/god-litigant-examining-contradictions-and-biases (Last
visited on March 2, 2024)......................................................................................................9
J Sai Deepak, The Eternity of the Deity, The Open Magazine, November 15, 2019, available
at https://openthemagazine.com/cover-stories/the-eternity-of-the-deity/#google_vignette
(Last visited on March 3, 2024).............................................................................................8
J Tilak, Supreme Court 's Explanation for Ruling in Favour of Hindu Parties in Ayodhya, The
Wire, November 09, 2019, available at https://thewire.in/law/ayodhya-verdict-supreme-
Court -judgment (Last visited on March 2, 2024)................................................................10
Mayank Jain Parichha, Making Deity A Juridical Person Is Not New In Religio-legal
Disputes, THE OUTLOOK, October 3, 2022, available at
14 | P a g e
 https://www.outlookindia.com/national/making-deity-a-juridical-person-is-not-new-in-
religio-legal-disputes-magazine-224979 ( Last visited on March 3, 2024)...........................8
RamaKant Shukla, Ram Janam Bhumi is not a juristic person, LIVE LAW, September 21,
2020, available at https://www-livelaw-in.nujs.remotlog.com/top-stories/ram-janam-
bhumi-is-not-a-juristic-person-149650?infinitescroll=1 (Last visited on March 3, 2024)....8
Simran Vishal Bafna, Doctrine of Reasonable Classification, available at Doctrine of
Reasonable Classification 4 Issue 4 International Journal of Law Management &
Humanities 2021 (heinonline.org) (Last visited on March 2, 2024)....................................10
SK Arun Murthi, Thanks to the Ayodhya Judgment, Faith Rather Than Fact is Driving
India's Court s, The Wire, May 27, 2022, available at https://thewire.in/law/thanks-to-the-
ayodhya-judgment-faith-rather-than-fact-is-driving-india (Last visited on March 3, 2024)
……….8,9
Sudhir Saxena, Supreme Court 's Ayodhya Verdict Rests on a Glaring Contradiction, THE
WIRE, June 15, 2020, available at https://thewire.in/law/supreme-Court -ayodhya-verdict-
possession (Last visited on March 2, 2024).........................................................................11
Supreme Court Observer, History of the Ayodhya title dispute: A timeline, January 23, 2024,
available at: History of the Ayodhya title dispute: A timeline - Supreme Court Observer
(scobserver.in) (Last visited on March 1, 2024)....................................................................4
The Hindu, Ayodhya verdict: decoding Allahabad HC’s nine-year-old majority judgment
under challenge in SC, November 09, 2019, available at:
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ayodhya-verdict-decoding-allahabad-hcs-nine-
year-old-majority-judgment-under-challenge-in-sc/article29929197.ece (Last visited on
March 1, 2024).......................................................................................................................4
The Indian Express, In Gyanvapi case, the test ahead: Law on places of worship and the
challenge it faces, January 26, 2024, available at
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/gyanvapi-case-the-test-ahead-law-on-places-of-
worship-and-the-challenge-it-faces (Last visited on March 2, 2024)..................................11
The Indian Express, The Lord as a juristic person: What legal rights do deities enjoy, August
05, 2020 https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ayodhya-title-suit-lord-ram-the-lord-
as-a-juristic-person-what-legal-rights-do-deities-enjoy-6052442/ ( Last visited on March 2,
2024)......................................................................................................................................6
Ujjwal K Chowdhury, Ayodhya Verdict: A Faith- Based Ruling, A Juridical Compromise,
NEWS CLICK. November 10, 2019, available at https://www.newsclick.in/ayodhya-verdict-
faith-based-ruling-judicial-compromise. (Last visited on March 2, 2024)............................9
15 | P a g e
Yash Raj Sharma, India’s Ayodhya wakes up to harsh realities after Modi’s Ram temple
event, available at https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2024/2/1/indias-ayodhya-wakes-up-
to-harsh-realities-after-modis-ram-temple-event (Last visited on March 2, 2024)..............12
Ziya us Salman, The Message the Ram Temple Sends Muslims Like Me, The Time, January
20, 2024, available at https://time.com/6564244/india-ayodhya-ram-temple-muslims/ (Last
visited on March 2, 2024)....................................................................................................12

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Duff P.W., The personality of an Idol, Vol. 3(1), JSTOR, 20 (1927..........................................7

Leonidas Pitamic, ANALYSIS OF THE NOTION OF JURISTIC PERSONALITY, 10 Notre Dame L.
Rev. 235 (1935)......................................................................................................................6
Rahul Govind, On the Deity as Juristic Personality: The Religious, The Secular And The
Nation in The A And The Nation in The Ayodhya Dispute And The A Dispute And The
Ayodhya Judgments (2010 And 2019), Vol. 33(1), NLSIR, Article 8 (2021).........................5
Ratna Kapur, THE 'AYODHYA' CASE: HINDU MAJORITARIANISM AND THE RIGHT TO

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, Maryland Journal of International Law 29 (2012).............................12

Samaradiwakera-Wijesundara, The Fiction of the Juristic Person: Reassessing Personhood in
Relation to People, 186-208, Wits University Press..............................................................5

BOOKS

E. Kantorowicz, The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval Political Theology (Princeton
University Press, 1957)..........................................................................................................5
Jyotirmay Sharma, HINDUTVA: EXPLORING THE IDEA OF HINDU NATIONALISM (2003).........12

16 | P a g e