Author: Archita Bhargava, Narsee Monjee Institute of Management Studies, Indore 

Despite the presence of temples, grand processions and vast estates in a country where god-goers reside permanently or temporarily, is there ambiguity regarding one's ability to sue for legal harm? Even though it may appear strange, Hindu gods are legally recognized in India. Why? Statues of a divine being can possess land, solicit donations from donors, file lawsuits, and attend court as any individual. It is legal but has concrete repercussions, this has given rise to significant events, such as the Ayodhya dispute, where Ram Lalla Virajman was among the petitioners, and the ongoing disputes over land and temple ownership. Temples have undergone a transformation from being sites of religious worship to arenas where belief, law and power intersect. The subject matter of this blog is the peculiar and captivating intersection of religion and legality, where disputes over divine beings are a common thread.

Hindus are recognized as divine beings under Indian law.? In 1925, the Privy Council's landmark ruling in Pramatha Nath Mullick v. solidified this unusual concept as well. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick. It was held by the court that a religious figure may own property and must be represented in legal proceedings, with he himself being designated as 'the trustee'. This principle was not a one-time event. The validity of this notion was affirmed in Ramnath v. Hanuman Mandir, 1952; later upheld by the Supreme Court in Yogendra Nath Naskar v. (Job 12/1992). The Court acknowledged the idol as a juristic person with legal rights and protections, just like any other human being. In India, it is permissible to sue a god.

In India, temples are commonly associated with holding wealthier land, gold, donations, and other valuable items in honor of the god. There are multiple instances where disputes over temple governance, government intervention in administrative affairs, mishandling of donations or land for temple use, and property infringement. Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Kerala is one of the most recognizable examples. This is where the deity Sri Padmanabhaswami was legally entitled to the immense wealth of the temple. Initially, the royal family was considered trustees, but they were challenged by the state. The Supreme Court's decision in 2020 confirmed the deity' benevolence and validated that the temple was under the rightful royal family to act as trustee and human custodian.

The controversy surrounding the Ayodhya title was the most significant moment when an Indian god was recognized as a legal entity. Ram Lalla was acknowledged by the SC as a juristic party and ultimately became an official representative of the idol's right to rule the land. The dispute was not solely religious or political but also involved a property battle with arguably the most deserving litigant in legal history.

Interestingly, the concept of an idol as a legal person is unique to Hindu law. Under Islamic law, for instance, a mosque is not considered a juristic person. Instead, religious property is typically held as a form of charitable endowment. In Christian and Sikh traditions, churches and gurdwaras are usually managed by registered societies or statutory boards, rather than by idols with independent legal standing. So, while a Ram Lalla or a Shiv Murti can be a litigant in court, Jesus or Allah cannot at least, not in the eyes of Indian law.

Legally speaking, considering an idol as just another human being could be a viable solution to the problem, whether it is for temple property or religious endowments. This legal fabrication opens up broader philosophical and constitutional questions. Can a god possess rights without corresponding duties? What happens when religion and property law become too deeply entangled? Are we genuinely safeguarding faith, or are we inadvertently institutionalizing it? Critics argue that granting legal personhood to idols risks blurring the line between religion and the state. It may create legal grounds that can be misused to favour certain religious claims over others, challenging the secular framework envisioned by the Constitution.

In today’s fast paced legal landscape, the idea of suing or being sued on behalf of a god feels both surreal and deeply symbolic. It reveals how Indian law doesn’t just regulate citizens; it actively shapes our understanding of belief, community, and property. The law may not have all the answers to divine questions, but it has certainly carved out space in its statutes for gods to enter the courtroom. Whether this is a clever legal fiction or a constitutional challenge waiting to unfold, one thing is certain: the gods are watching and sometimes, litigating.

1. Yogendra Nath Naskar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1969) 3 SCR 742.

2. Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick, (1925) 27 BOMLR 1064. 

3. M. Siddiq (D) THR LRs v. Mahant Suresh Das, (2019) 4 CURCC 182. 

4. Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple v. State of Kerala, Civil Appeal No. 2732/2020 (SC) 

5. Indian Trusts Act, 1882 

6. Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951.