In legal proceedings involving animals, animals have the status of “legal persons” and humans have a legal obligation to act as “loco parentis” for the welfare of animals, as a parent does to minor children. A court ruled in 2014 in the case “Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja” that animals are also entitled to the fundamental right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution[23], i.e. the right to life, personal liberty and the right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia). In another case, a court in the state of Uttarakhand ordered animals to have the same rights as humans. In another cow smuggling case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana ordered that “the entire animal kingdom, including species of birds and aquatic animals” should have a “separate legal personality with the corresponding rights, duties and responsibilities of a living person” and that humans be “loco parentis” while setting standards for animal welfare, veterinary treatment, food and shelter, for example. Wagons hauled by animals must not have more than four persons and carriers must not be loaded beyond the established limits, and these limits must be halved if the animals are to carry the load on a slope. [22] From time to time, the term “corporation” has been interpreted by different lawyers in different contexts. Courts in the United States and the United Kingdom have interpreted the term on numerous occasions in commercial, international, domestic and social matters. The Indian judiciary also faced a similar challenge in the Mohd case. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. [31] Legal theories about the legal person had been established since the beginning of Roman law to justify the existence of a legal person other than man. The State, religious bodies and educational institutions have long been recognized as separate legal entities from their members.
In some common law legal systems, a distinction is made between a corporation (e.g., a corporation with a number of members) and a corporation, which is a public office with separate legal personality from the person exercising the function (both entities have separate legal personality). Historically, most bodies have been exclusively ecclesiastical in nature (for example, the office of Archbishop of Canterbury is a single body), but a number of other public functions are now formed as single bodies. The concept of legal entity is at the heart of Western law today, in both common law and civil law countries, but it is also found in virtually all legal systems. [12] While natural persons acquire legal personality “naturally”, simply by birth (or before that in some jurisdictions), legal persons must have the legal personality conferred on them by an “unnatural” legal procedure, and for this reason they are sometimes called “artificial” persons. In the most common case (business creation), legal personality is usually acquired by registration with a government agency established for this purpose. In other cases, this can be done through primary law: an example is the Charity Commission in the United Kingdom. [8] The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 calls for providing legal personality for all, including birth registration by 2030 as part of the 2030 Agenda. [9] According to Indian law, “shebaitship” is the property belonging to the deity or idol as a “legal person”.
People who are destined to act in the name of divinity are called “shebait”. A shebait acts as guardian or guardian of the deity to protect the right of the deity and fulfill the legal duties of the deity. Shebait is similar to a trustee if the deity or temple has a legally registered trust or legal entity. According to Hindu law, goods given or offered as rituals or gifts, etc. absolutely belong to the deity and not to the shebait. The case studies are “Profulla Chrone Requitte vs Satya Chorone Requitte”, AIR 1979 SC 1682 (1686): (1979) 3 SCC 409: (1979) 3 SCR 431. (ii)” and “Shambhu Charan Shukla vs Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj, AIR 1985 SC 905 (909): (1985) 2 SCC 524: (1985) 3 SCR 372”. [24] In lawsuits involving religious entities, the deity (the deity or God is a supernatural being considered divine or holy) is also a “legal person” who may participate in a dispute through a “trustee” or “responsible temple leadership.” The Supreme Court of India (SC) ruled in 2010, ruling on Ram Janmabhoomi`s Ayodhya case, that the Rama deity in the respective temple was a “legal person” entitled to be represented by its own lawyer appointed by the directors acting on behalf of the deity. Similarly, the Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that the Ayyappan deity was a “legal person” with a “right to privacy” in the court case concerning the entry of women into Lord Ayyapan`s Sabarimala shrine. [22] This theory is also known as the theory of opportunism. Similar to fiction and concession theories, it explains that only humans can be a person and have rights.
Other human entities are considered artificial persons and simply function as a legal means to protect or achieve a real purpose.[19] Since companies are not human beings, they can only be considered as legal or artificial persons.