In a case evoking the crossroads of jurisprudence and religious devotion, the Delhi High Court has levied a hefty fine of Rs 1 lakh on a man who introduced Lord Hanuman as a co-litigant in a plea over the control of private land that hosted a temple dedicated to the deity. This unusual legal maneuver stemmed from a conflict surrounding the property, shining a light on the complexities of law and belief.
The plea was essentially an appeal against a prior ruling by a lower court that had dismissed their “objection petition” involving the exchange of the land to a third party. Arguing for celestial rights over earthly possessions, the man contended that the plot rightfully belonged to Lord Hanuman. Establishing himself both as a devotee and a ‘next friend,’ a legal term for someone representing those who are unable to represent themselves, the appellant asserted his standing in court on behalf of the deity.
However, the presiding judge, Justice C Hari Shankar, identified the claim as an unscrupulous attempt to hijack the disputed piece of land. He elucidated that the original occupiers of the land took illegitimate control of it and, following legal proceedings and an agreed settlement with the plaintiff, they were obligated to vacate after receiving a cumulative sum of Rs 11 lakh. Yet, they defaulted on this agreement even after a partial payment of Rs 6 lakh had been made.
Complicating matters further, during the execution of this settlement, the appellant injected himself into the fray, offering the defense that the land was imbued with spiritual significance and thus belonged to the deity installed there. Such a claim challenged the conventional legal understanding and prompted an uncommon judicial response.
“I never thought that God would, one day, be a litigant before me. This appears, however, thankfully, to be a case of divinity by proxy,” remarked Justice Shankar wryly in the court order dated May 6. His observations underscored the novelty of the situation where faith and law intersected in an unexpected legal battle.
At the heart of the court’s ruling was the clear distinction between private and public places of worship. Justice Shankar noted that a privately owned temple remains private unless the owner explicitly allows public worship or the place undergoes a natural evolution into a public temple over time. He underscored the potentially catastrophic implications of conceding to the appellant’s assertions; it would set a dangerous precedent allowing individuals to seize land unlawfully, erect temples, permit intermittent public worship, and in effect permanently obstruct the rightful owner from reclaiming their property.
“The fact that the public worships at a private temple, even with free access, does not ipso facto indicate that the temple is a public temple,” the court declared, emphasizing that the inherent intention behind the temple’s construction and the conditions under which it has been opened to public worship plays a crucial role in categorizing the temple’s status.
For the present matter, Judge Shankar concluded that there was no evidence to even suggest that the temple could be categorized as a public temple, making the appellant’s pretense of defending Lord Hanuman as his next friend legally untenable.
Upon dismissing the appeal, the court imposed a one lakh rupees cost on the appellant man, payable to the aggrieved party. To ward off any potential claims that the divine co-litigant should bear part of the financial responsibility, the court humorously clarified that the penalty was to be borne solely by the man himself, using a lowercase ‘h’ to differentiate the human appellant from the deity. The court’s decision not only reflected a defense of property rights over misapplied religious assertions but also discouraged the exploitation of faith for personal gain within the legal system.
