Of Ebbs and Flows: Understanding the Legal Consequences of Granting Personhood to Natural Entities in India

Abstract

A study of the rights regime for environmental protection in India indicates that such protections overlap with constitutional rights guaranteed primarily to citizens or persons under the law. Contemporary jurisprudence has aggressively developed this intersectionality, declaring natural entities to be living persons with fundamental rights analogous to those of human beings. This article explores the role played by two judgments delivered by the Uttarakhand High Court – Mohammed Salim v. State of Uttarakhand and Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand – in the establishment of an effective framework for environmental protection. This is effectuated in both cases by assigning legal personality to rivers and articulating a conceptual shift from the human-centric approach. Accounting for the socio-cultural and spiritual relationships that have received legal protection, this article critically analyzes the judgments, their rationale and contributions to environmental protection. As the judgments articulate a paradigm shift in environmental protection, their effectiveness is best assessed through analyzing the frameworks created for their implementation. While the pronouncement of the Indian courts on the legal personality of rivers is an encouraging paradigm shift in environmental commitment, establishing the rights of nature was undertaken without due attention to the complexities that characterize the Indian socio-politico-religious context and to the legal consequences of bestowing vaguely contoured rights upon natural entities.

A Tale of Many Battles: Arguing Legal Personhood for Animals in the United States and India

“…These rulings came a year after the same judge declared the Ganges and Yamuna rivers 40 as well as a Himalayan glacier and other elements of nature 41 legal persons. It is not my purpose here to examine in detail their content, work which has already been done from different perspectives (Alley 2019; Brunet 2019; Jolly and Menon 2021; O’Donnell 2018; Tănăsescu 2021; 2022). Instead, I limit myself to considering some of the reactions the rulings produced in India and abroad.…”

Signs of Invisibility: Nonrecognition of Natural Environments as Persons in International and Domestic Law

“…In recent litigation in India rivers were again invoked as deserving a special status. In March 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court, a provincial court, declared that "the Rivers Ganga and Yamuna, all their tributaries, streams, every natural water flowing with flow continuously or intermittently of these rivers, are declared as juristic/legal persons/living entities having the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person" [53,86]. The notion of a river or other domain having duties and liabilities is problematical.…”

Ten Years On: Rethinking Transnational Environmental Law

“…26 The contribution by Stellina Jolly and Roshan Menon continues this exploration but injects a note of caution about recent developments in India, and urges ongoing refinement of the doctrine in this area. 27 The analysis by Jolly and Menon focuses on two 2017 judgments issued by the Uttarakhand High Court (UtK HC). In the Ganga case, the UtK HC held that the river Ganga was a legal living entity.…”