2000 Supreme(SC) 633

2000(3) Supreme 302
Supreme Court of India
(From Punjab & Haryana High Court)
M. Jagannadha Rao & A.P. Misra, JJ.
Shriomani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar —Appellant
versus
Shri Som Nath Dass & Ors. etc. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3968 of 1987
With
SLP © Nos. 2735-36 of 1989
Decided on 29-3-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : M.S. Gujaral, Ujagar Singh, Harbans Lal, Hardev Singh, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ms. B.K. Brar, Ms. Shobha, S.K. Mehta, Ashok K. Mahajan, A.V. Palli, Mrs. Rekha Palli, P.N. Puri, Atul Sharma, D.D. Sharma, Dhruv Mehta, Aman Vachhar, D.P. Sharma, Narinder Singh, R.K. Aggarwal, Advocates.

Important Points
1. If entrustment is to any juristic person, mere absence of manager would not negate the existence a juristic person.
2. The Guru Granth Sahib installed in a Gurudwara or at such other recognised public place is a juristic person.

Headnote:Juristic Person—What constitutes —"The Guru Granth Sahib", whether a juristic person?—Endowment or juristic person does not depend upon appointment of manager—Mere absence of a manager would not negative existence of a juristic person—Guru Granth Sahib is a juristic person—But every Guru Granth Sahib cannot be a juristic person unless it takes juristic role through its installation in a Gurudwara or at such recognised public place.

       Held : The very words "Juristic Person" connote recognition of an entity to be in law a person which otherwise it is not. In other words, it is not an individual natural person but an artificially created person which is to be recognised to be in law as such. It is well settled and confirmed by the authorities on jurisprudence and courts of various countries that for a bigger thrust of socio-political-scientific development evolution of a fictional personality to be a juristic person became inevitable. This may be any entity, living, inanimate, objects or things. It may be a religious institution or any such useful unit which may impel the courts to recognise it. This recognition is for subserving the needs and faith of the society. A juristic person, like any other natural person is in law also conferred with rights and obligations and is dealt with in accordance with law. In other words, the entity acts like a natural person but only through a designated person, whose acts are processed within the ambit of law. When an idol was recognised as a juristic person, it was known it could not act by itself. As in the case of minor a guardian is appointed, so in the case of idol, a Shebait or manager is appointed to act on its behalf. In that sense, relation between an idol and Shebait is akin to that of a minor and a guardian. As a minor cannot express himself, so the idol, but like a guardian, the Shebait and manager have limitations under which they have to act. Similarly, where there is any endowment for charitable purpose it can create institutions like a church, hospital, gurudwara etc. The entrustment of an endowed fund for a purpose can only be used by the person so entrusted for that purpose in as much as he receives it for that purpose alone in trust. When the donor endows for an idol or for a mosque or for any institution, it necessitates the creation of a juristic person. The law also circumscribes the rights of any person receiving such entrustment to use it only for the purpose of such a juristic person endowment may be given for various purposes, may be for a church, idol, gurudwara or such other things that the human faculty may conceive of, out of faith and conscience but it gains the status of juristic person when it is recognised by the society as such. (Paras 11 & 14)

       With the passage of time and the changes in the socio-political scenario, collective working instead of individualised working became inevitable for the growth of the organised society. This gave manifestation to the concept of Juristic Person as an unit in various forms and for various purposes and this is now a well recognised phenomena. This collective working, for a greater thrust and unity gave birth to cooperative societies, for the success and implementation of public endowment it gave rise to public trusts and for purpose of commercial enterprises the juristic person of companies were created, so on and so forth. Such creations and many others were either statutory or through recognition by the courts. Different religions of the world have different nuclei and different institutionalised places for adoration, with varying conceptual beliefs and faith but all with the same end. Each may have differences in the perceptive conceptual recognition of god but each religion highlights love, compassion, tolerance, sacrifice as a hallmark for attaining divinity. When one reaches this divine empire, he is beholden, through a feeling of universal brotherhood and love which impels him to sacrifice his wealth and belongings, both for his own bliss and for its being useful to a large section of the society. This sprouts charity, for public endowment. It is really the religious faith that leads to the installation of an idol in a temple. Once installed, it is recognised as a juristic person. The idol may be revered in homes but its juristic personality is only when it is installed in a public temple. (Para 21)

       Faith and belief cannot be judged through any judicial scrutiny. It is a fact accomplished and accepted by its followers. This faith necessitated the creation of a unit to be recognised as a "Juristic Person". All this shows that a "Juristic Person" is not roped in any defined circle. With the changing thoughts, changing needs of the society, fresh juristic personalities were created from time to time. (Para 22)

       It is submitted for the respondent that decisions of courts recognised an idol to be a as juristic person but they did not recognise a temple to be so. So, on the same parity, a gurudwara cannot be a juristic person and Guru Granth Sahib can only a sacred book. It cannot be equated with an idol nor does Sikhism believe in worshiping any idol. Hence Guru Granth Sahib cannot be treated as a juristic person. This submission in our view is based on a misconception. It is not necessary for ‘Guru Granth Sahib’ to be declared as a juristic person that it should be equated with an idol. When belief and faith of two different religions are different, there is no question of equating one with the other. If ‘Guru Granth Sahib’ by itself could stand the test of its being declared as such, it can be declared to be so. (Para 23)

       An idol is a "Juristic Person" because it is adored after its consecration, in a temple. The offerings are made to an idol. The followers recognise an idol to be symbol for God. Without the idol, the temple is only a building of mortar, cement and bricks which has no sacredness or sanctity for adoration. Once recognised as a "Juristic Person", the idol can hold property and gainfully enlarge its coffers to maintain itself and use it for the benefit of its followers. On the other hand in the case of mosque there can be no idol or any images of worship, yet the mosque itself is conferred with the same sacredness as temples with idol, based on faith and belief of its followers. Thus the case of a temple without idol may be only brick, mortar and cement but not the mosque. Similar is the case with the Church. As we have said, each religion have different nuclei, as per their faith and belief for treating any entity as a unit. (Para 24)

       "Guru Granth Sahib is a "Juristic Person". It cannot be equated with an ‘Idol’ as idol worship is contrary to Sikhism. As a concept or a visionary for obeisance, the two religions are different. Yet, for its legal recognition as a juristic person, the followers of both the religions give them respectively the same reverential value. Thus the Guru Granth Sahib it has all the qualities to be recognised as such. Holding otherwise would mean giving too restrictive a meaning of a ‘juristic person’, and that would erase the very jurisprudence which gave birth to it. (Para 28)

       No endowment or a juristic person depends on the appointment of a Manager. It may be proper or advisable to appoint such a manager while making any endowment but in its absence, it may be done either by the trustees or courts in accordance with law. Mere absence of a manager negative the existence of a juristic person. (Para 29)

       The installation of ‘Guru Granth Sahib’ is the nucleus or nectar of any gurudwara. If there is no Guru Granth Sahib in a Gurudwara it cannot be termed as gurudwara. When one refers a building to be a gurudwara, he refers it so only because Guru Granth Sahib is installed therein. Even if one holds a Gurudwara to be a juristic person, it is because it holds the ‘Guru Granth Sahib’. So, there do not exist two separate juristic persons, they are one integrated whole. (Para 31)

       It was agreed that if Guru Granth Sahib is a ‘’Juristic Person" then every copy of Guru Granth Sahib would be a ‘’Juristic Person". This again in our considered opinion is based on erroneous approach. On this reasoning it could be argued that every idol at private places, or carrying it with one self each would become a "Juristic Person". This is a misconception. An ‘idol becomes juristic person only when it is consecrated and installed at a public place for public at large. Every ‘idol’ is not a juristic person. So every Guru Granth Sahib cannot be a juristic person unless it takes juristic role through its installation in a gurudwara or at such other recognised public place. Though it is true Guru Granth Sahib is a sacred book like others but it cannot be equated with these other sacred books in that sense. As we have said above, Guru Granth Sahib is revered in gurudwara, like a ‘Guru’ which projects a different perception. It is the very heart and spirit of gurudwara. The reverence of Guru Granth on the one hand and other sacred books on the other hand is based on different conceptual faith, belief and application. (Paras 32 & 33)