The Guru told the disciple not to grieve at his departure. It
was true that they would not see his body in its physical manifestation but he
would be ever present among the Khalsas. Whenever the Sikhs needed guidance or
counsel, they should assemble before the Granth in all sincerity and decide
their future line of action in the light of teachings of the Master, as
embodied in the Granth. The noble ideas embodied in the Granth would live for
ever and show people the path to bliss and happiness. The aforesaid conspectus
visualises how Juristic Person was coined to subserve to the needs of the
society. It is really the religious faith that leads to the installation of an
idol in a temple. Once installed, it is recognised as a juristic person. The
idol may be revered in homes but its juristic personality is only when it is
installed in a public temple.
~ not any religious discourse .. .. but text excerpted from
judgement of Supreme court of India in ShriomaniGurudwaraPrabandhak ... vs Shri
SomNathDass&Orsdelivered on 29 March, 2000.
The
question raised in this appeal is of far reaching consequences and is of great
significance to one of the major religious followers of this country. The
question was: whether the Guru Granth Sahib could be treated as a juristic
person or not? In Sikhism, the last of
the living guru was Guru GobindSinghji who recorded the sanctity of Guru Granth
Sahib and gave it the recognition of a living Guru.
Miles away, a few years back, in a world-first a New Zealand
river was granted the same legal rights
as a human being.The local Māori tribe of Whanganui in the North Island has
fought for the recognition of their river – the third-largest in New Zealand –
as an ancestor for 140 years. On that
remarkable day in Kiwiland, hundreds of
tribal representatives wept with joy when their bid to have their kin awarded
legal status as a living entity was passed into law.“The reason we have taken
this approach is because we consider the river an ancestor and always have,”
said the lead negotiator for the
Whanganui iwi [tribe].
In case you are wondering the need for reading this post :- we have
liability policies – more specifically the ‘Directors and Officers Liability
Policy’ – a Policy where Insurers pay loss or each insured resulting from any
claim first made during the policy period for any wrongful act in the insured’s
capacity as a director, officer or employee …. … ’.. here Company is the policy
holder while Insured is described as ‘any
natural person’ who was, is, or shall become a director or officer of
the company …. … ….
In jurisprudence, a natural person is a person (in legal
meaning, i.e., one who has its own legal personality) that is an individual
human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a private (i.e.,
business entity or non-governmental organization) or public (i.e., government)
organization. Historically, a human being was not necessarily a natural person
in some jurisdictions where slavery existed (subject of a property right)
rather than a person.
In
many cases, fundamental human rights are implicitly granted only to natural
persons. For example, the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution, which states a person cannot be denied the right to vote based on
their biological sex, or Section Fifteen of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which guarantees equality rights, apply to natural persons only.
Another example of the distinction between natural and legal persons is that a
natural person can hold public office, but a corporation cannot.
For ease of understanding, “Natural Person” is a Human Being. Legal Person can be a being
- real or imaginary.
Now
continuing further, in a unique ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court accorded the
status of a "legal person or entity" to animals in the state, saying
"they have a distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and
liabilities of a living person".A division bench of Justices Rajiv Sharma
and Lokpal Singh bestowed the unique status on the animal kingdom while issuing
a series of directions to prevent cruelty against animals.The bench said the
order was aimed "to protect and promote greater welfare of animals, including
avian and aquatic, [and for this] animals are required to be conferred with the
status of legal entity/ legal person".
Way
back on 28th Apr 1925 Bombay
High Court dealt with an interesting appeal in the case : PramathaNath Mullick
vs Pradyumna Kumar Mullick. The questions
raised by this appeal were for the control and worship of a Hindu family idol. It
was reference to Thakur, the Thakurani, a female idol referred to in
some of the papers as the consort of the Thakur, and there was also a third, a
sacred or deified stone called the Salgram Sila. These three idols became the
objects of the pious worship of the family of the founder, Mutty Lal Mullick,
who originally installed them. The
appeal was on a decree of 1923 made by the High Court in Calcutta in its Civil
Appellate Jurisdiction reversing a decree dated June 1, 1922, made by the same
Court in its Original Civil Jurisdiction.
Ages since we have moved to the World of Computers and ‘Artificial
Intelligence’. Recently, a collaborative research team claimed their
artificially intelligent system should be recognized as the rightful inventor
of two innovative designs, in a potentially disruptive development in patent
law.Patent law is complicated even at the best of times, but a new project led
by researchers from the University of Surrey could make it more convoluted
still. Called the Artificial Inventor Project, the initiative is “seeking intellectual
property rights for the autonomous output of artificial intelligence.”
As BBC reported, the researchers are claiming that an artificially
intelligent system named DABUS is the rightful inventor of two designs, namely
a complex, fractal-like system of interlocking food containers and a rhythmic
warning light for attracting extra attention. To that end, the researchers are
filing patents on behalf of DABUS with the respective patent bodies in the
United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.The inventor of
DABUS, Stephen Thaler, is also involved in the project. DABUS is famous for
creating surrealist art, but it can do a lot more. And in fact, it’s not
designed for a specific task. Instead, Thaler describes DABUS as a “Creativity
Engine” capable of generating “novel ideas,” which it compares to other ideas
in its pre-existing database to assess just how novel its newfangled idea
actually is.“So with patents, a patent office might say, ‘If you don’t have
someone who traditionally meets human-inventorship criteria, there is nothing
you can get a patent on,’” wrote the BBC.
“In which case, if AI is going to be how we’re inventing things in the future,
the whole intellectual property system will fail to work.”
Interesting ! ~ or confusing ! ~ something on Liability
Insurance .. ..
With regards – S. Sampathkumar
No comments:
Post a Comment