Legal person#India

The concept of legal personhood for organizations of people is at least as old as Ancient Rome: a variety of collegial institutions enjoyed the benefit under Roman law.

The doctrine has been attributed to Pope Innocent IV, who seems at least to have helped spread the idea of persona ficta as it is called in Latin. In canon law, the doctrine of persona ficta allowed monasteries to have a legal existence that was apart from the monks, simplifying the difficulty in balancing the need for such groups to have infrastructure though the monks took vows of personal poverty. Another effect of this was that, as a fictional person, a monastery could not be held guilty of delict due to not having a soul, helping to protect the organization from non-contractual obligations to surrounding communities. This effectively moved such liability to persons acting within the organization while protecting the structure itself, since persons were considered to have a soul and therefore capable of negligence and able to be excommunicated.John Dewey, "The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality", Yale Law Journal, Vol. XXXV, April 1926, pages 655–673

In the common law tradition, only a person could possess legal rights. To allow them to function, the legal personality of a corporation was established to include five legal rights—the right to a common treasury or chest (including the right to own property), the right to a corporate seal (i.e., the right to make and sign contracts), the right to sue and be sued (to enforce contracts), the right to hire agents (employees) and the right to make by-laws (self-governance).{{Cite book|title=Textbook on legal methods, legal systems and research|last=Saha |first=Tushar Kanti |isbn=9788175348936|oclc=892043129|year = 2010|publisher=Universal Law }}

Since the 19th century, legal personhood has been further construed to make it a citizen, resident, or domiciliary of a state (usually for purposes of personal jurisdiction). In Louisville, C. & C.R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497, 558, 11 L.Ed. 353 (1844), the U.S. Supreme Court held that for the purposes of the case at hand, a corporation is "capable of being treated as a citizen of [the State which created it], as much as a natural person." Ten years later, they reaffirmed the result of Letson, though on the somewhat different theory that "those who use the corporate name, and exercise the faculties conferred by it," should be presumed conclusively to be citizens of the corporation's State of incorporation. Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 16 How. 314, 329, 14 L.Ed. 953 (1854). These concepts have been codified by statute, as U.S. jurisdictional statutes specifically address the domicile of corporations.

There are two kinds of legal persons: human and non-human. In law, a human person is called a natural person (sometimes also a physical person), and a non-human person is called a juridical person (sometimes also a juridic, juristic, artificial, legal, or fictitious person, {{langx|la|persona ficta}}).

Juridical persons are entities such as corporations, firms (in some jurisdictions), and many government agencies. For most purposes they are treated in law as if they were human persons.{{cite journal|last=Deiser|first=George F.|title=The Juristic Person. I|journal=University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register|date=December 1908|volume=48 New Series|issue=3|pages=131–142|jstor=3313312|quote=[...] men in law and philosophy are natural persons. This might be taken to imply there are persons of another sort. And that is a fact. They are artificial persons or corporations [...]|doi=10.2307/3313312}}{{cite book|author=Frederic William|title=The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland|year=1911|publisher=Cambridge University Press|chapter-url=http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=873&chapter=70329&layout=html&Itemid=27|editor=H.A.L. Fisher|editor-link=H.A.L. Fisher|chapter=Moral Personality and Legal Personality 1|quote=Besides men or "natural persons," law knows persons of another kind. In particular it knows the corporation, and for a multitude of purposes it treats the corporation very much as it treats the man. Like the man, the corporation is (forgive this compound adjective) a right-and-duty-bearing unit.|access-date=2013-06-07|archive-date=2014-02-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140221153722/http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=873&chapter=70329&layout=html&Itemid=27|url-status=dead }}

While natural persons acquire legal personality simply by being born, juridical persons must have legal personality conferred on them by a legal process and, for this reason, they are sometimes called "artificial" persons. In the most common case (incorporating a business), legal personality is usually acquired by registration with a government agency set up for the purpose. In other cases, legal personhood may result from legislation, such as the manner in which the Charity Commission was created in the UK.{{cite web|url=https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/part/2/chapter/1/crossheading/establishment-of-charity-commission/enacted|title=Charities Act 2006, s. 6|date=8 November 2006|website=legislation.gov.uk|access-date=22 November 2019|archive-date=14 April 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414142205/https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/50/part/2/chapter/1/crossheading/establishment-of-charity-commission/enacted|url-status=live}}

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 advocates for the provision of legal identity for all natural persons, including birth registration by 2030 as part of the 2030 Agenda.{{Cite web|last=Doss|first=Eric|title=Sustainable Development Goal 16|url=https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/sdg-16/|access-date=2020-09-25|website=United Nations and the Rule of Law|language=en-US|archive-date=2021-12-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211220024335/https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/sdg-16/|url-status=live}}

{{Main article|Juridical person|Corporate personhood}}

Artificial personality, juridical personality, or juristic personality is the characteristic of a non-living entity regarded by law as having the status of personhood.

A juridical or artificial person ({{langx|la|persona ficta}}; also juristic person) has a legal name and has certain rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities in law, similar to those of a natural person. The concept of a juridical person is a fundamental legal fiction. It is pertinent to the philosophy of law, as it is essential to laws affecting a corporation (corporations law).

Juridical personhood allows one or more natural persons (universitas personarum) to act as a single entity (body corporate) for legal purposes. In many jurisdictions, artificial personality allows that entity to be considered under law separately from its individual members (for example in a company limited by shares, its shareholders). They may sue and be sued, enter into contracts, incur debt, and own property. Entities with legal personality may also be subjected to certain legal obligations, such as the payment of taxes. An entity with legal personality may shield its members from personal liability.

In some common law jurisdictions a distinction is drawn between corporation aggregate (such as a company, which is composed of a number of members) and a corporation sole, which is a public office of legal personality separated from the individual holding the office (these entities have separate legal personality).{{cite web| url = https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtstatin/180/18010.htm| title = S.I. 2008/1957: extract from the explanatory memorandum prepared by the Ministry of Justice| last = Ministry of Justice| date = 21 October 2008| publisher = publications.parliament.uk| quote = "If each separate office that person held had been a "corporation sole" (i.e. recognised in law as a separate legal entity)..."| access-date = 23 August 2021| archive-date = 23 August 2021| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210823153732/https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtstatin/180/18010.htm| url-status = live}} Historically most corporations sole were ecclesiastical in nature (for example, the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury is a corporation sole), but a number of other public offices are now formed as corporations sole.

The concept of juridical personality is not absolute. "Piercing the corporate veil" refers to looking at the individual natural persons acting as agents involved in a company action or decision; this may result in a legal decision in which the rights or duties of a corporation or public limited company are treated as the rights or liabilities of that corporation's members or directors.

The concept of a juridical person is now central to Western law in both common-law and civil-law countries, but it is also found in virtually every other legal system.

Some examples of juridical persons include:

• Cooperatives (co-ops), business organization owned and democratically operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit
• Corporations are bodies corporate created by statute or charter. A corporation sole is a corporation constituted by a single member, in a particular capacity, and that person's successors in the same capacity, in order to give them some legal benefit or advantage, particularly that of perpetuity, which a natural person could not have had. Examples are a religious officiant in that capacity, or The Crown in the Commonwealth realms. A corporation aggregate is a corporation constituted by more than one member.
• Municipal corporations (municipalities) are created by statutes. Other organizations may be created by statute as legal persons, including European economic interest groupings (EEIGs).
• Unincorporated associations, that is aggregates of two or more persons, are treated as juridical persons in some jurisdictions.
• Partnerships, an aggregate of two or more persons to carry on a business in common for profit and created by agreement. Traditionally, partnerships did not have continuing legal personality, but many jurisdictions now treat them as having an independent legal personality.
• Family can be treated as a legal person.{{cite journal | last1=Carney | first1=Michael | last2=Gedajlovic | first2=Eric | last3=Strike | first3=Vanessa M. | title=Dead Money: Inheritance Law and the Longevity of Family Firms | journal=Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice | volume=38 | issue=6 | date=2014 | issn=1042-2587 | doi=10.1111/etap.12123 | pages=1261–1283}}
• Companies are corporations – the term often refers to a business association that carries on an industrial enterprise, although companies may take other forms, such as trade unions, unlimited companies, trusts, and funds. Limited liability companies—be they a private company limited by guarantee, private company limited by shares, or public limited company—are entities having certain characteristics of both a corporation and a partnership. Different types have a complex variety of advantages and disadvantages.Frisch D. (2011). [http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/Frisch_18-2_2011.pdf Commercial Law's Complexity] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140203195016/http://www.georgemasonlawreview.org/doc/Frisch_18-2_2011.pdf |date=February 3, 2014 }}. George Mason Law Review.
• Sovereign states are legal persons.{{cite book|first1=Chris P. |last1=Thorpe |first2=John C. L. |last2=Bailey |title=Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EKw3cYLg4yUC&q=%22legal+person%22+%22sovereign+state%2&pg=PA24 |publisher=Kogan Page |year=1999 |page=23|isbn=9780749428426 }}
• In the international legal system, various organizations possess legal personality. These include intergovernmental organizations (the United Nations, the Council of Europe) and some other international organizations (including the Sovereign Military Order of Malta, a religious order).
• The European Union (EU) has legal personality since the Lisbon Treaty entered into force on 1 December 2009. That the EU has legal personality is a prerequisite for the EU to join the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). However, in 2014, the EU decided not to be bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights.Opinion 2/13 [2014], nyr [https://web.archive.org/web/20150108015717/http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?doclang=EN&text=&pageIndex=0&part=1&mode=DOC&docid=160882&occ=first&dir=&cid=240894]
• Temples, in some legal systems, have separate legal personality.Williams v The Shipping Corporation of India (US District Court, Eastern District Virginia), 10 March 1980, 63 ILR 363
• The Whanganui River was granted legal personality in March 2017 under New Zealand law because the Whanganui Māori tribe regard the river as their ancestor.{{cite web

| first1 = Eleanor Ainge

| last1 = Roy

| title = New Zealand river granted same legal rights as human being

| date = 16 March 2017

| work = The Guardian

| location = London, United Kingdom

| access-date = 2017-03-16

| url = https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being

| archive-date = 2017-04-01

| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170401201333/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/16/new-zealand-river-granted-same-legal-rights-as-human-being

| url-status = live

}}

• Also, in March 2017, the High Court of Uttarakhand declared the Ganges River a legal "person" in a move that according to one newspaper, "could help in efforts to clean the pollution-choked rivers". As of 6 April 2017, the ruling has been commented on in Indian newspapers to be hard to enforce, with assertions that experts{{who|date=July 2017}} do not anticipate immediate benefits, that the ruling is "hardly game changing", that experts{{who|date=July 2017}} believe "any follow-up action is unlikely", and that the "judgment is deficient to the extent it acted without hearing others (in states outside Uttarakhand) who have stakes in the matter".{{citation needed|date=July 2017}} The Supreme Court of India overturned the decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand in July 2017.{{cite news |title=India's Ganges and Yamuna rivers are 'not living entities' |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40537701 |access-date=21 March 2023 |publisher=BBC |date=7 July 2017 |archive-date=21 March 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230321012739/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-40537701 |url-status=live }}

Not all organizations have legal personality. For example, the board of directors of a corporation, legislature, or governmental agency typically are not legal persons in that they have no ability to exercise legal rights independent of the corporation or political body which they are a part of.

{{anchor| concept of "Legal Person" in Indian law | India }}

Indian law defines two types of "legal person", the human beings as well as certain non-human entities which are given the same legal judicial personality as human beings. The non-human entities given the "legal person" status by the law "have rights and co-relative duties; they can sue and be sued, can possess and transfer property". Since these non-human entities are "voiceless" they are legally represented "through guardians and representatives" to claim their legal rights and to fulfill their legal duties and responsibilities. Specific non-human entities given the status of "legal person" include "corporate personality, body politic, charitable unions etc," as well as trust estates, deities, temples, churches, mosques, hospitals, universities, colleges, banks, railways, municipalities, and gram panchayats (village councils), rivers, all animals and birds.{{cite web |url-status=live |url=https://qz.com/india/1636326/who-apart-from-human-beings-are-legal-persons-in-india/ |title=Birds to holy rivers: A list of everything India considers "legal persons" |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109082418/https://qz.com/india/1636326/who-apart-from-human-beings-are-legal-persons-in-india/ |archive-date=2019-11-09 |website=Quartz |date=June 7, 2019 |first1=Ananya |last1=Bhattacharya }}

In court cases regarding corporates, the shareholders are not responsible for the company's debts but the company itself being a "legal person" is liable to repay those debts or be sued for the non-repayment of debts.

In court cases regarding animals, the animals have the status of "legal person" and humans have the legal duty to act as "loco parentis" towards animals welfare like a parent has towards the minor children. A court while deciding the "Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja" case in 2014 mandated that animals are also entitled to the fundamental right to freedom{{cite book|title=Democratic Politics Class 9|publisher=NCERT}} enshrined in the Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e. right to life, personal liberty and the right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia). In another case, a court in Uttarakhand state mandated that animals have the same rights as humans. In another case of cow-smuggling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court mandated that "entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic" species has a "distinct legal persona with corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person" and humans are "loco parentis" while laying out the norms for animal welfare, veterinary treatment, fodder and shelter, e.g. animal drawn carriages must not have more than four humans, and load carrying animals must not be loaded beyond the specified limits and those limits must be halved when animals have to carry the load up a slope.

{{See also |Hindu law}}

In court cases regarding religious entities, the deity (deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred) is also a "legal person" who can engage in legal cases through "trustees" or "managing board in charge of the temple". Supreme Court of India (SC), while deciding Ayodhya case of Ram Janmabhoomi, decided in 2010 that the deity Rama in the specific temple was a "legal entity" entitled to be represented by their own lawyer appointed by the trustees acting on behalf of the deity. Similarly, in 2018 SC decided that the deity Ayyappan is a "legal person" with "the right to privacy" in the court case regarding the entry of women to Sabarimala shrine of Lord Ayyapan.

{{anchor|Shebait|Shebaitship}}

Under the Indian law, the "shebaitship" is the property owned by the deity or idol as a "legal person". Humans appointed to act on behalf of deity are called the "shebait". A shebait acts as the guardian or custodian of deity to protect the right of deity and fulfill the legal duties of the deity. Shebait is similar to a trustee in case the deity or temple does have a legally registered trust or entity. Under the Hindu Law property gifted or offered as rituals or donations, etc absolutely belongs to the deity and not to the shebait. Case example 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".[https://www.legalcrystal.com/dictionary/definition/105839/shebaitship shebaitship] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109095712/https://www.legalcrystal.com/dictionary/definition/105839/shebaitship |date=2019-11-09 }}, legalcrystal.com.

India and New Zealand both recognised the legal rights of rivers in 2017.{{Cite news |title=Innovative bill protects Whanganui River with legal personhood |url=https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/innovative-bill-protects-whanganui-river-with-legal-personhood/ |access-date=2022-09-03 |website=www.parliament.nz |language=en |archive-date=2019-09-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190930011334/https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/innovative-bill-protects-whanganui-river-with-legal-personhood/ |url-status=live }} In court cases regarding natural entities, the Uttarakhand High Court, mandated that the river Ganges and Yamuna as well as all water bodies are "living entities" i.e. "legal person" and appointed three humans as trustees to protect the rights of rivers against the pollution caused by the humans, e.g. "pilgrims's bathing rituals". The Supreme Court of India overturned the decision of the High Court of Uttarakhand in July 2017.

Section 28 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides: "... the provisions of this Bill of Rights apply, so far as practicable, for the benefit of all legal persons as well as for the benefit of all natural persons."

In part based on the principle that legal persons are simply natural persons and their organizations, and in part based on the history of statutory interpretation of the word "person", the US Supreme Court has repeatedly held that certain constitutional rights protect legal persons (such as corporations and other organizations). Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad is sometimes cited for this finding because the court reporter's comments included a statement the Chief Justice made before oral arguments began, telling the attorneys during pre-trial that "the court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does."

Later opinions interpreted these pre-argument comments as part of the legal decision.See, for example, [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=147&invol=165 Noble v. Union River Logging] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402151912/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=147&invol=165 |date=2015-04-02 }} As a result, because of the First Amendment, Congress may not make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation or a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper,First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti and because of the Due Process Clause, a state government may not take the property of a corporation without using due process of law and providing just compensation. These protections apply to all legal entities, not just corporations.

A prominent component of relevant case law is the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which ruled unconstitutional certain restrictions on corporate campaign spending during elections.http://origin.www.supremecourt.gov/docket/08-205.htm {{Dead link|date=May 2012}}

• In U.S. v. The Cooper Corp., (1941) the court held that the United States government, as a juristic person, could sue under the Sherman Act. Section 7 of the act granted the right to sue only to persons. The corporate defendant, which was accused of illegally conspiring and colluding to raise prices on tires, argued that the U.S. government did not have power to enforce the act because the government was not a person. The court held that the term "person" includes the U.S. Government, and allowed the action against the collusive corporations to continue.
• In Cook County v. U.S. ex rel Chandler, (2003) the county was accused of violating a law which forbids "any person" from falsely obtaining research funds from the government. The county received a $5 million grant, but used it to conduct inappropriate tests on human subjects. The county argued that it could not be held liable because it was not a person. The court held that the county could be sued under the law as a legal person.
• In Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, (1993) the court declined to extend certain rights to legal persons. The association of prisoners sought to proceed in forma pauperis. The court held that the right to sue in forma pauperis existed only for natural persons, not legal persons.

Other significant cases include:

• Paul v. Virginia ("... in which the United States Supreme Court held that a corporation is not a citizen...")
• Netscape Communications Corp. v. Konrad for what it means for two entities to be separate

In Act II, Scene 1 of Gilbert and Sullivan's 1889 opera, The Gondoliers, Giuseppe Palmieri (who serves, jointly with his brother Marco, as King of Barataria) requests that he and his brother be also recognized individually so that they might each receive individual portions of food as they have "two independent appetites". He is, however, turned down by the Court (made up of fellow Gondolieri) because the joint rule "... is a legal person, and legal person are solemn things."

• Environmental personhood
• European Convention on the Recognition of the Legal Personality of International Non-Governmental Organisations
• Institution
• Intracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 118
• List of legal entity types by country
• Political representation of nature
• Separate legal entity
• Successor liability

{{reflist}}

{{refbegin}}

• {{cite book |first = J. |last = Binder |url = http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/binder/index.html |title = Das Problem der juristischen Persönlichkeit |language = de |year = 1907 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110720151018/http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/binder/index.html |archive-date = 2011-07-20 }}
• {{cite book |first = R. |last=Saleilles |title = De La Personalité Juridique: Histoire et Théories |language = fr |year=1922 }}
• {{cite book |first = F. |last=Hallis |title = Corporate Personality: A Study in Jurisprudence |year=1930 }}
• {{cite book |first = P.W. |last=Duff |title = Personality in Roman Private Law |year=1938 }}
• {{cite book |first = C.A. |last=Cooke |title = Corporation, Trust and Company: A Legal History |year=1950 }}
• {{cite book |first = A. |last=Watson |title = The Law of Persons in the Later Roman Republic |year=1967 }}
• {{cite book |first=S. |last=Guterman |title = The Principle of the Personality of Law in the Germanic Kingdoms of Western Europe from the Fifth to the Eleventh Century |year=1990 }}

{{refend}}

{{refbegin}}

• {{cite journal |first=J. |last=Dewey |title=The Historic Background of Corporate Legal Personality |year=1926 |volume=35 |journal=Yale Law Journal |issue=6 |pages=655–673 |ref=655 |doi=10.2307/788782 |jstor=788782 |url=https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3149&context=ylj |access-date=2020-09-10 |archive-date=2021-01-16 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210116030842/https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3149&context=ylj |url-status=live }}
• {{cite journal |first = A.W. |last=Machen |title = Corporate Personality |year=1910 |volume=24 |journal = Harvard Law Review |ref=253 }}

{{refend}}

{{Law}}

{{Social class}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Legal Personality}}

Legal entities (category)

Category:Corporate law

Category:Financial law

Category:Business economics

Category:Business terms

Category:Legal terminology

Category:Management cybernetics