Man makes Lord Hanuman party to temple case in Delhi; fined

The litigant, Ankit Mishra, claimed to be the next friend of Lord Hanuman and challenged a property dispute decree in the city court

The Delhi high court has levied a fine of ₹1 lakh on a litigant who involved Lord Hanuman as a party in a case concerning a temple dispute on private land, terming it an “abuse of the legal process” and a “pernicious” attempt.

The high court directed Ankit Mishra to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh to the rightful owner of the property. (Representational image)

In a scathing observation, justice C Hari Shankar noted, “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’. This is the worst and most pernicious kind of practice that can be resorted to.”

The judgment delivered on Monday added, “The court is constrained to observe that the manner in which the process of the law has been abused by the appellants is an affront, not only to the law, but to the court and its entire process. There can be no scope of leniency in such a case.”

The litigant, Ankit Mishra, claimed to be the next friend of Lord Hanuman and challenged a property dispute decree in the city court. Mishra argued that the land belonged to Lord Hanuman as the temple built on it was public property. However, the city court dismissed his objection petition in September last year, stating that the temple was on private land and worship by the public did not make it a public temple. Mishra had also been declared ineligible to represent Lord Hanuman as its next friend, according to the city court.

Nixing Mishra’s appeal against the city court order, the high court rejected his claim that public worship at the temple conferred public status. Justice Shankar held that the land did not belong to the deity merely because of public worship.

“If a person constructs a temple on his private property, essentially meant for himself and his family, there is no proscription on his allowing members of the public to offer prayers at the temple on festive occasions. Suffice it, however, to say that the fact that the public worship at a private temple, even with free access, does not ipso facto indicate that the temple is a public temple. Neither does the land on which a private temple is constructed vest in the deity, merely because the public are allowed to worship there,” the high court noted.

Consequently, the high court directed Mishra to pay a fine of ₹1 lakh to the rightful owner of the property, emphasising that there could be no leniency in such cases of abuse of the legal process.