Next Friend of Deity in Indian Law

The Doctrine of "Next Friend" in Indian Jurisprudence: Safeguarding the Interests of Hindu Deities

Introduction

In the unique tapestry of Indian jurisprudence, a Hindu deity or idol is recognized as a juristic person, capable of holding property and being a party to legal proceedings.[6, 11] This legal personality, however, necessitates a mechanism for the deity's representation in worldly affairs, including litigation. Ordinarily, the Shebait, or manager of the temple or religious endowment, assumes this representational role. However, circumstances frequently arise where the Shebait’s actions are detrimental to the deity's interests, or where the Shebait is unwilling or unable to act. In such scenarios, the doctrine of the "next friend" emerges as a crucial legal recourse, allowing an interested person, typically a worshipper, to represent the deity and protect its rights. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of the concept of the "next friend" of a deity within Indian law, examining its conceptual underpinnings, the judicial pronouncements that have shaped its contours, and the procedural intricacies involved.

The Juristic Personality of Hindu Deities

The foundation for the concept of a "next friend" lies in the legal recognition of Hindu idols as juristic entities. This recognition is not a modern innovation but is rooted in ancient Hindu customs and religious beliefs, subsequently affirmed by courts of law. The Privy Council, in the seminal case of Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925) 52 IA 245, observed that "A Hindu idol is, according to long-established authority, founded upon the religious customs of the Hindus, and the recognition thereof by courts of law, a ‘juristic entity’. It has a juridical status with the power of suing and being sued."[11] This principle has been consistently reiterated by the Supreme Court of India.[2]

The deity, though a juristic person, is in a position analogous to that of a minor or an individual under a disability, as it cannot act or speak for itself.[10, 16] Its interests, therefore, must be protected by a human agency. As the Rajasthan High Court noted, a deity or idol should ordinarily be considered as a minor in perpetuity.[10] This conceptualization underscores the need for robust mechanisms to safeguard the deity’s properties and rights.

Representation of the Deity: The Primary Role of the Shebait

The primary individual entrusted with the management of the deity’s property and affairs, including its representation in legal proceedings, is the Shebait. The Shebait’s position is not that of a trustee in the English legal sense but rather that of a manager or custodian.[6] The Privy Council in Pramatha Nath Mullick[11] clarified that the deity's interests "are attended to by the person who has the deity in his charge and who is in law its manager with all the powers which would, in such circumstances, on analogy, be given to the manager of the estate of an infant heir." So long as the Shebait is functioning properly and in the interest of the deity, the right to sue on behalf of the deity vests with the Shebait.[14]

Emergence of the "Next Friend": Protecting the Deity's Interests

The necessity for a "next friend" arises when the Shebait, the natural guardian and representative of the deity, fails in their duty or acts in a manner prejudicial to the deity's interests.

Grounds for Intervention by a Next Friend

The intervention of a next friend is warranted in several situations:

  • When the Shebait acts adversely to the interests of the idol, for instance, by improperly alienating the deity’s property.[3, 5]
  • When the Shebait is negligent in their duties or is unwilling to institute legal proceedings to protect the deity's property.[7] (citing Kalimata Debi's case)
  • When the Shebait is the guilty party against whom the deity needs relief. As Mukherjea J. articulated, "where the deity wanted relief against the shebait himself, it cannot possibly be expected that the shebait would represent the deity in the suit."[9, 12]
  • In the absence of a duly appointed Shebait or when the Shebait is incapable of acting.

The Supreme Court in Bishwanath And Another v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji And Others[3, 5] firmly established that if an alienation of the deity's property is effected by the Shebait acting adversely to the idol's interests, a worshipper can file a suit on behalf of the idol as its next friend.

Who Can Act as a Next Friend?

The law permits various individuals with a bona fide interest in the deity and its worship to act as its next friend:

  • Worshippers: This is the most common category. A worshipper's right to sue as next friend in appropriate circumstances is well-recognized.[3, 5, 14]
  • Prospective Shebaits: Individuals who have a legitimate expectancy to become Shebaits in the future may also act as next friends.[7, 14]
  • Persons interested in the endowment: This can include family members of the founder or Shebait who have an interest in the proper maintenance of worship and preservation of debutter property.[9, 12] (Sushama Roy, where the wife of a co-Shebait acted as next friend).
  • De facto Manager: A de facto manager or Shebait has also been held entitled to maintain a suit on behalf of the deity.[14]

Some judicial observations suggest a broader scope, indicating that "any person" might come forward under exceptional circumstances,[7] (citing Sen J.'s view in Thakur Sree Sree Annapurna Debi) or that even a co-Shebait may represent the deity under special circumstances.[7] (citing Pal J.'s view).

Procedural Aspects of Representation by a Next Friend

The Form of the Suit: Deity as Plaintiff

When a suit is instituted by a next friend, it must be filed in the name of the deity itself, with the next friend merely acting as its representative. If the suit is not in the name of the deity, it is considered a personal suit of the individual (e.g., a worshipper asserting their own right to worship), even if the deity stands to benefit from the litigation.[14] The relief claimed in a suit by the deity through a next friend is for the deity, such as recovery of possession of property improperly alienated.[3, 5]

Applicability of Order 32, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) does not contain specific provisions governing suits by or against deities. However, given the deity's conceptual analogy to a minor, courts have often looked to Order 32 CPC, which deals with suits by or against minors and persons of unsound mind, for procedural guidance.

In Sri Sri Gopal Jew v. Baldeo Narain Singh And Ors.,[7] the Calcutta High Court extensively discussed this issue, with Das J. opining that rules of procedure relating to a minor should be applied by analogy to a Hindu deity. The learned Judge suggested that if the Court appoints a next friend, it should assume powers similar to those it has over a guardian-ad-litem for a minor under Order 32. However, it has also been noted that Order 32 does not specifically provide for the appointment of a next friend for an idol,[19] and some older judgments expressed reservations about the direct applicability of Order 32 to deities.[18] (citing Rankin, C.J. in Surendra Krishna v. Ishwari Bhubhaneshwari).

Necessity of Prior Court Appointment

A significant point of judicial discourse has been whether a person intending to act as a next friend for a deity must seek prior appointment from the court.

  • View Requiring/Preferring Appointment: Some earlier decisions and judicial dicta leaned towards the necessity or desirability of prior court sanction. Page J. in Administrator-General of Bengal v. Balkissen Misser suggested the court would appoint an "agent ad litem" (a term later critiqued).[9] Lord Williams J. in Sarat Chandra v. Dwarkanath opined it was desirable for the idol to appear by a disinterested next friend appointed by the court.[20] Pal J. in Tarit Bhusan Ray v. Sridhar Saligram held that no person other than the Shebait can represent the deity unless specially appointed by the court.[7, 20] The Calcutta High Court in Sushama Roy v. Atul Krishna Roy And Anr.[9, 12] observed that ordinarily, the deity's interest requires that no one other than a Shebait be allowed to institute a suit in the deity's name without a previous court order.
  • View that Prior Appointment is Not Mandatory: The Supreme Court in Bishwanath And Another v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji And Others[3, 5] clarified that a worshipper has an "ad hoc power of representation" when the Shebait acts adversely. This has been interpreted to mean that prior court appointment is not an absolute prerequisite.[19] Sen J., in Thakur Sree Sree Annapurna Debi (as cited in Sri Sri Gopal Jew[7]), saw no ground for holding that the next friend must be appointed by the court before instituting a suit, though the court could later investigate the fitness of the self-appointed next friend if challenged. In Bhagauti Prasad Khetan And Etc. v. Laxminathji Maharaj And Etc.,[19] the Allahabad High Court, following Bishwanath, held that such appointment is not necessary and that allowing the suit to proceed implies deemed acceptance of the next friend, especially if no objection is raised at the trial stage.

Even if a suit is instituted without prior appointment, the court retains the power to inquire into the bona fides and fitness of the person acting as the next friend and, if necessary, to remove them and appoint another.[7]

Distinction from Suits under Section 92 CPC

It is crucial to distinguish suits filed by a deity through a next friend for the protection of its private rights (e.g., recovery of property) from suits filed under Section 92 of the CPC. Section 92 deals with public trusts and provides for specific reliefs related to mismanagement, appointment of trustees, or schemes. The Supreme Court in Bishwanath[3, 5] clarified that a suit by an idol for a declaration of title to property and for possession does not fall within the ambit of Section 92 CPC, as it seeks to enforce the deity's private rights.

Judicial Scrutiny and Limitations

While the doctrine of "next friend" provides a vital protective mechanism, courts exercise careful scrutiny to ensure it is not misused. The court's paramount consideration is the welfare and interest of the deity.[7] The court cannot ignore the deity's rights or deny protection merely because of the misconduct of its Shebaits or the possibility of such persons indirectly benefiting.[7]

It is also important to note that a deity, despite its unique status, is subject to general laws, including the law of limitation. The Supreme Court in M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das And Others[4] affirmed that an idol cannot claim exemption from the law of limitation.

Analysis of Key Precedents

The jurisprudence on the "next friend" of a deity has been shaped by several landmark rulings:

  • Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (PC, 1925):[6, 11] This case firmly established the idol's juristic personality and likened the Shebait's role to that of a manager for an infant heir, laying the conceptual groundwork for representation. The Privy Council also noted the appointment of a guardian-ad-litem for defendant deities in that specific case.
  • Bishwanath And Another v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji And Others (SC, 1967):[3, 5] This is the locus classicus on the subject. The Supreme Court unequivocally upheld the right of a worshipper to sue as the next friend of the deity when the Shebait acts against the deity's interest or fails to protect it. It also clarified the distinction between such suits and those under Section 92 CPC.
  • Sri Sri Gopal Jew v. Baldeo Narain Singh And Ors. (Calcutta HC, 1946):[7] This judgment offers an in-depth analysis of the procedural aspects, advocating for the application of Order 32 CPC by analogy and discussing the court's role in the appointment and supervision of a next friend. It highlighted the court's responsibility to protect the deity even if it means allowing a suit by a next friend where Shebaits are defaulting.
  • Sushama Roy v. Atul Krishna Roy And Anr. (Calcutta HC, 1955):[9, 12] This case affirmed that a suit by a next friend (in this instance, the wife of a co-Shebait) is maintainable when Shebaits have precluded themselves by their conduct from protecting the deity's interests. It also discussed the desirability, though not absolute necessity in all circumstances, of prior court appointment.

Conclusion

The doctrine of the "next friend" of a deity is a testament to the Indian legal system's adaptability in protecting unique legal personalities recognized by personal law. It serves as an essential safeguard for the proprietary and religious interests of Hindu deities, particularly when those entrusted with their primary care and management falter. While the Shebait remains the de jure representative, the law empowers worshippers and other interested individuals to step in as next friends, ensuring that the deity, a perpetual minor in the eyes of the law, is not left remediless. The judiciary, through a series of nuanced pronouncements, has clarified the scope of this right, the procedural framework (often drawing analogies from Order 32 CPC), and the necessary checks to prevent abuse. This evolving jurisprudence continues to ensure that religious endowments are preserved, and the deity's interests are paramount, thereby upholding both legal principles and the sanctity of religious institutions in India.

References

  1. Deoki Nandan v. Murlidhar And Others (1957 AIR SC 133, Supreme Court Of India, 1956)
  2. Ram Jankijee Deities And Others v. State Of Bihar And Others (1999 SCC 5 50, Supreme Court Of India, 1999)
  3. Bishwanath And Another v. Sri Thakur Radha Ballabhji And Others (1967 AIR SC 1044, Supreme Court Of India, 1967)
  4. M Siddiq (D) Thr Lrs v. Mahant Suresh Das And Others (2019 SCC ONLINE SC 1440, Supreme Court Of India, 2019)
  5. BISHWANATH AND ANR. v. SHRI THAKUR RADHABALLABHJI & ORS. (1967 INSC 32, Supreme Court Of India, 1967)
  6. Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925 BOMLR 27 1064, Bombay High Court, 1925)
  7. Sri Sri Gopal Jew, v. Baldeo Narain Singh And Ors. (Calcutta High Court, 1946)
  8. Jogesh Chandra Bera And Others v. Sri Iswar Braja Raj Jew Thakur . (Calcutta High Court, 1981)
  9. Sushama Roy v. Atul Krishna Roy And Anr. . (Calcutta High Court, 1955)
  10. Ram Lal & Anr. v. Board Of Revenue & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court, 1990)
  11. Ram Jankijee Deities And Others v. State Of Bihar And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1999) [Note: This reference document primarily quotes Pramatha Nath Mullick v. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick (1925) 52 IA 245 (PC)]
  12. Sushama Roy v. Atul Krishna Roy And Anr. . (1955 SCC ONLINE CAL 166, Calcutta High Court, 1955)
  13. Doongarsee Syamji Joshi v. Mukhia Tirbhuwan Das (1946 SCC ONLINE ALL 120, Allahabad High Court, 1946)
  14. Behari Lal v. Thakur Radha Ballabh Ji (1959 SCC ONLINE ALL 232, Allahabad High Court, 1959)
  15. Probir Chandra Pal v. Panchanan Choudhury (1955 SCC ONLINE CAL 217, Calcutta High Court, 1955)
  16. Temple Of Thakurji Village Kansar v. The State Of Rajasthan & Others (1997 SCC ONLINE RAJ 96, Rajasthan High Court, 1997)
  17. Ramrato Baba v. Bismilla Usmani & Ors. (Madhya Pradesh High Court, 2005)
  18. Murti Shivji Maharaj Birajman & Others v. Mathura Das Chela Naval Das & Others (Allahabad High Court, 2018)
  19. Bhagauti Prasad Khetan And Etc.… v. Laxminathji Maharaj And Etc.… (Allahabad High Court, 1985)
  20. Jogesh Chandra Bera And Others… v. Sri Iswar Braja Raj Jew Thakur…. (Calcutta High Court, 1981)