INTRODUCTION
“If a man reaches the heart of his religion, he has reached the heart of the others too. There is only one God, and there are many paths to him”. The above statement can undoubtedly substitute as a preamble to a religious inscription. Man is a complex social and political animal that exists and co-exists through a synchronization of beliefs. Inter-personal and group interactions are birthed from the readiness to uphold certain tenets and belief systems. These beliefs could be either concerning certain patterns of behaviour or patterns of worship.
Religion is therefore the belief in the existence of and worship of ‘superhuman’ power(s), especially a God or gods. Religion, in most cases, often serves as the palpable cause of great tension and predicament, resulting in factions between people and groups, people and societies, etc. In a bid to resolve disputes and bridge the gap between antagonistic groups, pluralism and nurturing diversity have been prescribed as viable means to ease such passions and promote peace and harmony among the masses..
India has a vast history of managing different cultures and faiths, and this history needs to be cherished and made relevant. The courts have consistently upheld this principle of cohesiveness by intentionally voicing the relevant provisions of the Constitution regarding religious freedom and diversity in its judgments. However, there appears to be a jaundiced view about the applicability of the ‘legal personality’ to only deity images or idols. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Ayodhya Dispute Case deprives the ‘Supreme Being’ of legal personality and rather confers it on the idol which is reverenced ‘as a physical incarnation of God’. Thus, religious patterns that do not accommodate idols would be void of a juristic personality. The work sets out to voice the need for the scope of juristic personality to be broadened to accommodate the cohesive principles set out by the Constitution.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Just like other basic freedoms, the Constitution of India empowers every citizen to relate with his being. The religious freedom is contained in Articles 25 through 28.
Article 25(1) gives the people the free will to practice and proclaim their religion, concerning general order, health and morality.
Article 25(2) (a) permits the State to restrict the activities of any religion that are economical, financial, political, or secular in nature.
Article 25(2) (b) allows for social welfare, reform as well as opening up of public religious places for all sections of Hindus.
Article 26 provides that every religious sect be empowered to set up and maintain institutions for religious and charitable reasons, manage its religious affairs, lawfully acquire both movable and immovable property and manage its property taking into cognizance general order, health and morality.
This provision was further expounded in the Supreme Court’s case of Rev. Stanislaus v. MP. Which held that “what the article grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenets”.
Article 27 permits non-remittance of taxes, even as the proceeds shall be used specifically for promoting or maintaining any religious sect.
This simply implies that no one shall be forced to pay taxes for promoting a particular religion.
Article 28(1) explains that those educational institutions wholly funded by the State cannot distribute any religious instruction, but educational institutions that are established under any endowment, or trust and just administered by the State can impart religious instructions if required.
Article 28(3) states that in educational institutions recognized or receiving funds from the State, no person is allowed to partake in any religious instruction in that institution; or is required to worship in the institution or any premises attached to it except if he voluntarily chooses to or, if the consent of the guardian is available, as in the case of a minor.
RELIGIOUS OFFENCES
Just as there are laws establishing the rights and freedoms of worshippers, there are likewise laws stipulating the acts that constitute infringement upon the rights stated as well as the punishments to be meted out. These laws are contained in the Indian Penal Code from sections 295 to 298.
Section 295A of the Penal Code provides that intentionally insulting a religious belief of any citizen or community in India with a cruel intention is a criminal offence. The insult could be expressed by either spoken or written words, signs, seeable representation, etc. Anyone guilty is subject to imprisonment up to three years and/or a fine.
Section 296 provides that anyone who willingly disturbs any assembly that is lawfully engaged in religious worship or ceremonies is liable to imprisonment for a term that may extend to a year, or fine, or both.
Section 297 provides that invading any worship centre or sepulchre, obstructing a funeral with the sole aim of wounding the feeling or insulting anyone’s religion, degrading a corpse of a human is punishable with a fine, a year’s imprisonment or both.
Section 298 provides that anyone who with the sole intent of wounding the feelings of any person towards the person’s religion, utters a word or makes a sound to the hearing of that person or makes a gesture while the person is in sight or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be liable to imprisonment for either a term which may extend to a year, or with fine, or both.
LEGAL PERSONALITY OF A DEITY-IMAGE
A personality is an entity, which is an independent answerable body. A legal personality therefore implies an entity that can sue as well as be sued. As opposed to a natural person (human being), a legal personality or juristic entity is an entity whom the law vests with a personality. In India, an idol or deity image is recognized as a legal entity in the eyes of the law.
This principle is pronounced and streamlined in M Siddiq v. Mahant Suresh Das & Ors., popularly referred to as the Ayodhya Dispute Case. It was held by the Supreme Court that ‘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 confer legal personality on divinity’. It went further to state that ‘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 concerning boundaries – physical or legal. For this reason that it is omnipresent, it would be impossible to distinguish where one legal entity ends and the other next begins.’
Flowing from the principle highlighted in the above Supreme Court’s decision, it could be inferred that the idea of ‘legal personality’ only applies to religions that have images representing their deities or gods; while religions that do not recognize idols do not possess the ‘legal personality’ and this could limit their ability to exercise their full rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution and Penal Code.
CONCLUSION
The Indian Constitution encourages cohesiveness and cohabitation through its accommodating and considerate provisions. Generally, every sect in India is free to hold fast to their faith and religious beliefs without wavering. However, there are instances where certain sects try to oppress and subdue fellow sects, resulting in killings and massacres of various sects. In such instances, the courts are to be the mediator who would help restore peace and order to the parties in conflict. However, it is saddening because religions or sects that do not possess deity images or idols automatically lack legal personality in court and as such cannot sue or be sued and therefore cannot bring an action in court. Therefore, the scope of ‘legal personality’ should be widened to accommodate all sects irrespective of their mode of worship, to reflect the cohesion which is evident in the palpable provisions of Articles 25 through 28 of the Indian Constitution.
Author(s) Name: Blossom Essien (University of Uyo, Uyo, Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria)
