Author: Gauri Shukla, A Student at Jagran Lakecity University, Bhopal, [M.P]
Introduction
Recognizing the “Rights of Nature” is an emerging legal and philosophical concept that acknowledges the environment and its species as possessing inherent rights. This concept promotes acknowledging nature’s intrinsic worth and its right to exist, flourish, and change rather than supporting conventional legal systems that see it as property.
This is particularly important regarding the rivers, which provide water to a much larger population, even though they only make up a relatively small portion of freshwater supply of the world. Rivers are therefore noticeable, especially when their quality or quantity is declining, but as water resources are being used more and more, there is a growing need for institutional address water waste and overuse.
Giving rivers legal status entails providing them with legal protection by designating them a person in law, which is a new and emerging strategy to address this issue. Civil and political rights are examples of such fundamental guarantees. “These rights are often composed of 3 elements: civil privilege [the right to sue and be sued in court], the right to enter into and execute lawful contracts, and the right to own land.”
The recognition of the Ganga and Yamuna rivers as “living entities” by the Indian judiciary marks a groundbreaking shift in environmental jurisprudence, promoting an eco-centric approach rather than the traditional anthropocentric model. Revisiting State of Uttarakhand & Others v. Mohd. in 2023 reiterates the urgent need to treat nature as a rights-bearing subject in law.
Use of Legal Jargon
Public Trust Doctrine- The Government holds some natural resources, such as coastlines and navigable seas, in trust for the general public’s benefit.
Eco-centrism- An ethical perspective that asserts that nature has intrinsic value regardless of how beneficial it is to humans.
Anthropocentrism- Holds the belief that humans are the primary entity in the universe, or that human interests and values are of the utmost importance.
Parens patriae- States that the state or a court may intervene as the guardian of entities who are incapable of taking care of themselves.
The Proof
Citation- Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, (2017) SCC
The case saw the Uttarakhand High Court declare that the rivers Ganga and Yamuna possess the status of legal persons. Although this was later stayed by the Supreme Court due to administrative and liability concerns, the issue resurfaced in 2023 in a public interest litigation, reigniting the debate on environmental rights and obligations.
Abstract
It examines the concept of granting rivers legal personhood, the jurisprudential basis of environmental rights, makes analogies with international precedents (such as New Zealand’s Whanganui River), and assesses the effects of adopting an eco-centric legal system in India. In light of climate change, pollution, and unsustainable development, the analysis highlights how the court is shifting toward acknowledging nature as a stakeholder in legal systems- a system that has its roots in ancient Indian philosophy but is becoming more and more relevant today.
Case Law
Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand (2017)
Background: Mohammed Salim brought a lawsuit against unauthorized construction and encroachments along the Ganga River and sought direction to remove them, in the High Court of Uttarakhand, India, in 2014.
Judgement: The Uttarakhand state high court determined in March 2017 that the Ganga and Yamuna rivers are endangered and, therefore, declared as legal living entities with legal rights. Two senior state officials were appointed by the court to serve as the rivers’ “legal guardians,” representing their rights as they were considered akin to a minor represented by a guardian (in this case, government officials).
Since both rivers (Ganga and Yamuna) are the country’s two major rivers, the action was taken as a measure to increase protection for the deeply polluted rivers, despite their being highly revered in India. More than 500 million people in India depend on the Ganga River, worshipped in Hinduism as “Ganga Mata/ Maa Ganga,” or mother.
Legal Basis: The court relied on the doctrine of “parens patriae,” public trust doctrine, and comparative analysis with the Whanganui River in New Zealand, which was granted similar status by legislation.
Supreme Court Stay, 2017:
Issue: The order faced criticism due to uncertainty regarding liability (e.g., flood damages) and enforcement. The Supreme Court stayed the judgment, citing administrative impracticality.
Impact: Temporarily halted the progress of eco-centric legal reforms in India.
Revisited in 2023- Public Interest Litigation:
Development: In 2023, environmental activists and legal scholars pushed for a re-evaluation of the original 2017 judgment through a PIL filed in the Supreme Court and the Uttarakhand High Court, demanding concrete frameworks for implementing river personhood.
Status: As of early 2025, the matter is pending, but it has already sparked significant legal and academic discourse.
Analysis
Legal Personhood: Not Just for Humans:
The concept of legal personhood traditionally applies to individuals and entities such as corporations. Extending this status to natural objects (forests, rivers, mountains) represents a legal shift toward eco-centric, where nature is seen as a stakeholder, not merely a resource.
This reflects a rights-based approach to nature, moving beyond conservation for human benefit (anthropocentrism) to protecting nature for its own sake.
Eco-Centric Jurisprudence and Indian Philosophy:
The Cultural and Religious traditions of India often personify rivers as goddesses (e.g., Maa Ganga), and in the Constitution of India, Article 48A mandates the state to protect and improve the environment. Right to a clean environment as a part of Article 21 (Right to Life) was recognized in various judgments by the Apex court.
The 2023 revisit of the Mohd. Salim’s case aligns with these values by legally enforcing what Indian traditions have long accepted morally.
International Precedents:
New Zealand (Whanganui River Case, 2017): First in the world to grant legal personhood to a river through legislation.
Colombia (Atrato River): The Court recognized the rivers’ rights due to environmental degradation.
Bangladesh: In 2019, the Supreme Court granted all rivers the status of living entities.
These cases support the growing global trend towards environmental constitutionalism, where nature is recognized as a subject with enforceable rights.
Administrative and Legal Hurdles:
Liability Concerns- Critics argue that if rivers are legal persons, they could be sued for damage during floods.
Representation- There is ambiguity around who represents the river and how their duties are monitored.
Implementation- Without statutory backing or a defined mechanism, such declarations risk remaining symbolic.
To address this, the 2023 petition proposed a River Rights Authority comprising legal, ecological, and local community representatives.
The Public Trust Doctrine:
This doctrine posits that natural resources are held by the state in trust for public use, and the government is duty-bound to protect them. Courts have increasingly invoked this in water, forests, and land conservation cases, reinforcing state accountability.
The doctrine supports legal personhood by creating an obligation for the state to protect the entity, not exploit it.
Judicial Activism vs. Legislative Gaps;
The judiciary’s proactive stance in cases like Mohd. Salim reflects a necessary intervention in the face of legislative inaction. However, the lack of statutory clarity often leads to legal confusion. Hence, while the judiciary can lay down principles, parliamentary legislation is vital to implement and sustain these changes.
Conclusion
The recognition of rivers as legal persons, as revisited in 2023, symbolizes a progressive turn in environmental jurisprudence. It challenges traditional ideas of property and resources by advocating for nature’s rights. However, symbolic recognition must be supported by institutional mechanisms, clear liabilities, and community involvement.
India stands at a legal crossroads- between continuing with the exploitative environmental policies or pioneering a model where rivers, forests, and ecosystems are treated as rights-holding entities, respected and protected by law.
If implemented wisely, such recognition could revolutionize environmental protection, making it inclusive, enforceable, and aligned with the constitutional mandate of sustainability.
Reference
https://ecojurisprudence.org/initiatives/salim-v-state-of-uttarakhand/
https://blog.ipleaders.in/legal-rights-to-rivers-emerging-trend/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b1a21874a932631a5a08d3f
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol23/iss1/art7/
FAQs
What does the legal personhood of a river mean?
It refers to recognizing the river as a legal entity with rights, liabilities, and duties, similar to a corporation, capable of being represented in a court of law.
Legal personhood was granted for the first time in which case in India?
The High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna as living entities with legal rights, in the case of Mohd. Salim vs. State of Uttarakhand (2017).
Is the judgment of 2017 still applicable?
No, the Supreme Court stayed the order, citing issues related to liability and enforcement. However, the issue was revived in 2023 via a PIL.
What are the positive consequences of granting legal personhood to ivers?
Allows for stronger protection, accountability for pollution or exploitation, and a shift toward recognizing nature’s intrinsic rights.
