ABSTRACT
In the last ten years, Indian courts have started recognizing parts of nature—like rivers, forests, animals, and even “Mother Nature”—as legal persons. This means they are given rights and responsibilities like a human or a company. This paper looks at the idea of giving nature legal rights. It studies important court decisions, laws, and examples from other countries. It also looks at the problems with this idea, like how to apply it in real life, manage it, and make sure it works. The paper suggests steps the government can take to turn this concept into clear laws that are easier to follow. While courts have helped protect the environment through bold decisions, long-term success depends on proper laws, funds, and giving local communities the power to protect nature.
KEYWORDS
Environmental Personhood, Legal Rights of Nature, Indian Judiciary, Ecological Protection, Judicial Activism, Community Guardianship.
INTRODUCTION
Environmental damage is increasing quickly, and traditional legal methods often don’t work fast enough.Nature in India is facing many problems: pollution, deforestation, climate change, and water scarcity. Traditional laws have not always been enough to stop these problems. In response, some Indian courts have started giving parts of nature a new status: legal personhood. This means a river or a forest can have rights and protections like a person.A key moment was in 2017, when the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers as legal entities. After that, other courts gave similar rights to glaciers, lakes, animals, and “Mother Nature.” However, this idea has brought up serious questions—like who will represent nature, how its rights will be enforced, who is responsible for harm, and how this fits with India’s system of state and central powers. This paper looks at how environmental personhood has developed in India, what it means in practice, and how it can be improved. It also compares India’s approach
with what other countries are doing, and asks whether it can move from being just a symbolic idea to something that actually helps manage and protect the environment.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This paper adopts a doctrinal legal research method, relying primarily on qualitative analysis to understand the evolution and application of environmental personhood in India. The research draws extensively from primary legal sources, including the Constitution of India, key legislations, and significant judicial decisions. These sources help trace how legal doctrines have developed and been interpreted by Indian courts. In addition to primary sources, the study also uses secondary sources such as scholarly articles from law journals, authoritative legal commentaries, and reports from government bodies and policy think tanks to support critical analysis and interpretations. The paper further includes a comparative legal study, referencing international models like New Zealand’s Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, 2017, which granted legal personhood to a river, and Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution, which recognized the rights of nature. These global examples offer insight into alternative frameworks of environmental protection. In the Indian context, key judicial pronouncements like Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand,[1] where the court recognized rivers as legal entities, and Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja[2], which expanded the scope of animal rights, are critically examined. This methodological approach is effective in understanding judicial trends, identifying gaps in legal application, and proposing policy reforms for strengthening environmental personhood in India.[3]
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Many legal thinkers and scholars have explored the idea of giving legal rights to nature:
In 1972, a U.S. law professor named Christopher D. Stone wrote a famous article called “Should Trees Have Standing?” He argued that nature should be able to go to court just like people do.[4]
Other experts have also supported this idea. For example:
1)David R. Boyd wrote a book called The Rights of Nature, where he explained how nature can be protected better if it has legal rights.
2)In India, legal scholars like Shibani Ghosh and M.K. Ramesh has written about how the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution now includes the right to a clean and healthy environment. Courts have also created ideas like the “Polluter Pays” principle and the “Public Trust Doctrine,” which say that the government must protect nature for everyone’s benefit.[5]
There are also critics. Some say it’s not clear how nature will go to court, who will speak for it, or how to punish those who hurt it. Others worry that courts are doing the job of lawmakers, which can cause confusion.
- Important court cases like the MC Mehta series and Animal Welfare Board v. A. Nagaraja forms the base for environmental rights in India.[6]
- Studies of international examples—like New Zealand’s Te Awa Tupua Act and Ecuador’s Constitution—show that strong laws and community involvement are needed for environmental personhood to work in practice.[7]
However, not much research has looked at how personhood orders can actually be enforced in India’s complex legal and federal system. This paper aims to fill that gap.
METHOD
1. Legal Development in India.
The movement toward recognizing environmental personhood in India began with the landmark case of Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand in 2017. In this case, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers as living entities, granting them the status of legal persons. This meant that the rivers were to be treated like human beings in the eyes of the law, with rights and duties. The court also appointed senior government officials as the “legal guardians” responsible for protecting the rivers.[8] Later, in the same case, the court expanded this idea and extended legal personhood to glaciers, forests, and the entire Himalayan ecosystem, emphasizing their importance for environmental sustainability and future generations.[9]
Other high courts in India followed this progressive approach. In 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh the status of a “living entity.”[10] The court ruled that harming the lake would be treated as harming a human being. It emphasized the government’s duty to act as a guardian of the lake and protect it from pollution, illegal encroachments, and neglect. Importantly, the lake was also protected from being converted into land for construction or commercial purposes. The goal of this decision was to strengthen environmental protection by giving the lake legal rights.
In 2022, the Madras High Court recognized “Mother Nature”—including rivers, forests, wildlife, and the environment as a whole—as a legal person.[11]The court observed that nature has the right to exist, flourish, and be safeguarded. It imposed a legal duty on human beings to protect the environment, not just use it for economic gain. The state government was assigned the role of guardian to ensure the protection and well-being of nature. The judgment emphasized that the natural world is a living system that deserves respect and legal recognition, beyond being treated as just a resource.
Between 2024 and 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a historic judgment recognizing the “right against the adverse effects of climate change” as a part of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.[12]This decision acknowledged the constitutional duty of the State to protect the climate and guarantee citizens a healthy environment. However, the Court also raised practical concerns about the implementation of environmental personhood. After the Uttarakhand government’s challenge to the river personhood ruling, questions were raised Can a river be sued if it causes damage during a flood? Who is responsible for its actions? These doubts led the Supreme Court to stay the earlier ruling, stating that while the protection of the environment is vital, such sweeping declarations need proper legal frameworks for enforcement.[13]The Court highlighted that without a clear accountability system, recognizing nature as a person might be difficult to apply in practice. The judgment marked a balanced approach supporting climate action while demanding practical enforceability and institutional clarity.
2. Legal Tools Used –
2.1. Constitutional Provisions:
Article 21- Right to life (includes a healthy environment): The Indian Constitution provides a strong foundation for environmental protection. Article 21 guarantees the right to life, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the right to a clean and healthy environment. This interpretation has made environmental protection a part of the fundamental rights of Indian citizens.[14]
Article 48-A – Duty of the state to protect the environment: A part of the Directive Principles of State Policy, directs the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. Although not enforceable by courts, it guides law and policy-making.[15]
Article 51-A(g) – Duty of citizens to protect nature: Imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen of India to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. This reflects the shared responsibility between the State and citizens for environmental protection.[16]
2.2. Important Environmental Laws:
Environment Protection Act: The Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 is the umbrella legislation for environmental protection in India. It gives wide powers to the central government to take all necessary measures to protect the environment and control pollution.[17]
Indian Forest Act: The Indian Forest Act, 1927 provides a legal framework for the management and protection of forests and forest produce. It categorizes forests and defines forest offences and penalties.[18]
River Boards Act: The River Boards Act, 1956 allows the central government to establish river boards to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and river valleys, ensuring coordinated management.[19]
2.3. Legal Principles Applied:
Public Trust Doctrine – The government must protect nature for the public good.
The Public Trust Doctrine states that natural resources like air, water, and forests are held by the government in trust for the people, and cannot be exploited for private use. This principle has been upheld in several landmark environmental cases.[20]
Precautionary Principle – Prevent damage before it happens.
The Precautionary Principle requires that preventive action be taken to avoid environmental harm, even in the absence of scientific certainty. It shifts the burden of proof to the polluters to show that their actions are not harmful.[21]
Polluter Pays Principle – Those who harm the environment must pay for the harm.
The Polluter Pays Principle ensures that those who cause environmental damage are financially liable for restoring the environment and compensating the victims. It promotes accountability and environmental responsibility.[22]
3.International Models.
New Zealand (2017) (Whanganui River): Given legal personhood through law and protected by special guardians. The river is represented by two guardians: one from the government and one from the local Maori tribe. This shared model respects both law and culture.[23]
Ecuador (2008): Ecuador was the first country to include rights of nature in its Constitution, it gives rights to nature. Nature has the right to exist and regenerate. Any citizen can go to court to defend nature—even if they are not personally harmed.[24]
Bolivia: In 2010, Bolivia passed a Law of Mother Earth. It gives nature 11 specific rights like the right to life, clean air, and balance. However, the law is not always followed, showing that strong words need strong enforcement.[25]
United States (Local Laws): Some cities, like Toledo, Ohio, passed laws giving rights to nature (e.g., Lake Erie). But higher courts later struck these down. Still, they show that people want to give nature a voice.[26]
SUGGESTIONS
To make environmental personhood more effective in India, we need the following steps:
1. Make a New Law: There is a pressing need for Parliament to enact a specific legislation—a “Rights of Nature Act”—which defines what legal personhood means for natural entities. Such a law should clarify which parts of nature (rivers, forests, lakes, etc.) can be granted legal rights, how guardians are appointed, and the scope of those rights and responsibilities. It must also set enforcement mechanisms and provide judicial guidance. This step would move beyond case-by-case judgments and give legislative backing to the principle of environmental personhood.[27]
2. Choose the Right Guardians: The appointment of guardians for environmental entities should be structured and participatory. Instead of solely assigning government officers, the guardianship model should include local villagers, tribal communities, environmentalists, scientists, and public officials. These multi-stakeholder teams should work collaboratively, have reporting duties to courts, and make decisions that reflect local knowledge and scientific expertise. This approach mirrors New Zealand’s Whanganui River model, which ensures shared guardianship between the State and indigenous communities.[28]
3. Create a Fund: To ensure financial sustainability, India should set up a National Ecosystem Fund dedicated to the protection and restoration of legal entities like rivers and forests. This fund can be financed through fines imposed on polluters, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) contributions, and climate change mitigation funds from international and domestic sources. Such financial backing can support monitoring, conservation projects, and legal costs.[29]
4. Set Up Local Boards: Each state should form Ecosystem Personhood Boards responsible for managing forests, lakes, wetlands, and rivers granted legal status. These bodies can handle day-to-day protection, resolve local environmental disputes, conduct inspections, and even file litigation on behalf of the ecosystem. This decentralized model allows region-specific solutions and speeds up response time to environmental harm.[30]
5. Coordinate Across Governments: Rivers often flow across multiple states, and fragmented state policies may undermine effective protection. Hence, central and state governments must coordinate their legal and administrative responses to ensure uniform standards for environmental governance. This coordination can be modeled after existing structures like the River Boards under the River Boards Act, 1956.[31]
6. Add Review Systems: Granting legal personhood to nature should not be a one-time event. There should be a provision for regular review—for example, every five years—to evaluate the effectiveness of the guardians, check for compliance, and revise the personhood status if necessary. These reviews can be conducted by independent environmental auditors or judicial committees.[32]
7. Form Ecosystem Guardianship Boards: Inspired by New Zealand’s model of shared responsibility, India can establish Guardianship Boards that include local communities, NGO representatives, scientists, and forest officers. This plural structure would help ensure that decisions reflect diverse perspectives and that ground-level knowledge is integrated into environmental decision-making[33]
8. Align with Federal River Management: To avoid conflict between new personhood entities and existing river basin governance bodies, India must harmonize the goals of River Boards under the River Boards Act with the new framework. This would ensure that policy duplication, jurisdictional confusion, and administrative overlaps are minimized.[34]
9. Use Technology: Modern technology—like satellite imagery, drones, geospatial mapping, and AI tools—can greatly aid environmental protection. These technologies can help track deforestation, pollution levels, encroachments, and illegal mining or construction. Data gathered can be shared with guardians and courts, ensuring accountability and real-time action.[35]
10. Involve the Public: Environmental personhood should be a people-centric legal tool. This can be promoted through public awareness campaigns, school education, and allowing citizens to file PILs (Public Interest Litigations) on behalf of legal entities. Citizen engagement ensures transparency, boosts social responsibility, and promotes collective stewardship of the environment.[36]
CONCLUSION
In recent years, Indian courts have taken important and bold steps by giving legal rights to nature. Rivers like the Ganga and Yamuna, lakes like Sukhna, and even the broader concept of “Mother Nature” have been recognized as legal persons by various High Courts. These judicial efforts show that India is moving toward a new and progressive way of thinking about environmental protection.[37]However, without clear laws passed by Parliament, these decisions may remain mostly symbolic and difficult to apply in real life.
The courts have played a key role in raising awareness and starting a legal conversation about environmental personhood, but lasting change cannot come from court rulings alone. There must be a strong legal framework in place. This includes passing a new law—such as a “Rights of Nature Act”—that clearly explains what legal personhood for nature means, how it will work, and who will be responsible for enforcing it.
Alongside legislation, strong institutions are needed to make sure these rights are respected and enforced. This includes setting up environmental boards, appointing local guardians, and involving communities, scientists, and government officers in managing natural ecosystems. Without such support, nature’s legal rights may not be protected effectively.[38]
Environmental personhood should not be seen as just a sentimental or emotional idea, or something based only on spiritual or cultural beliefs. It is a legal tool—a way to help nature protect itself in a world where legal rights and responsibilities matter.[39]Giving forests, rivers, and wildlife legal standing means they can have a voice in court, and guardians can take action on their behalf.
India now has a unique opportunity to become a global leader in environmental justice. Many countries are watching how India handles this issue. But to truly lead, India must turn court judgments into real policies—policies that are backed by clear laws, proper funding, community participation, and scientific guidance.[40] Only then can the idea of environmental personhood move from the courts into the everyday legal system, and from symbolic declarations to actual environmental justice.
[1] Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, (2017) SCC OnLine Utt 367.
[2] Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547.
[3] See generally, Upendra Baxi, The Future of Human Rights (3rd ed. 2012).
[4] Christopher D. Stone, Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects, 45 S. Cal. L. Rev. 450 (1972).
[5]S. Ghosh, Environmental Law and Policy in India (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019); M.K. Ramesh & P. Leelakrishnan, Environmental Law in India (LexisNexis, 2015).
[6]MC Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 1 SCC 395; Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547.
[7]David R. Boyd, The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World (ECW Press, 2017).
[8]Supra note 1.
[9] Id.
[10] Court on its own motion v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 1303.
[11] M.K. Raphs v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 1459.
[12] In Re: Climate Justice for India, (2025) 4 SCC 22.
[13] Id. (The Supreme Court stayed the order of Uttarakhand High Court on river personhood).
[14] Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
[15] Constitution of India, art. 48-A.
[16] Id., art. 51-A(g).
[17] The Environment (Protection) Act, No. 29 of 1986, section 3, Acts of Parliament, 1986 (India).
[18] The Indian Forest Act, No. 16 of 1927, section 2, Acts of Parliament, 1927 (India).
[19] The River Boards Act, No. 49 of 1956, section 4, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
[20] M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388.
[21] Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India, (1996) 5 SCC 647.
[22] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
[23] Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (N.Z.).
[24] Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, 2008, arts. 71–74.
[25] Law of the Rights of Mother Earth, Law No. 071, Dec. 21, 2010, Gaceta Oficial del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (Bol.).
[26] Lake Erie Bill of Rights, Toledo, Ohio, City Charter Amendment (Feb. 26, 2019).
[27] See Law Commission of India, Report No. 277, “Recognition of the Rights of Nature” (2018).
[28] Supra note 23
[29] Companies Act, No. 18 of 2013, section 135, Acts of Parliament, 2013 (India).
[30] National Green Tribunal Act, No. 19 of 2010, section 4, Acts of Parliament, 2010 (India).
[31] River Boards Act, No. 49 of 1956, section 4, Acts of Parliament, 1956 (India).
[32] Supra note 21
[33] See Jan G. Laitos & Juliane B. Laitos, “Why Environmental Rights Fail,” 39 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol’y Rev. 1 (2014).
[34] Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India, (1996) 3 SCC 212.
[35] National Remote Sensing Centre, Government of India, Environmental Monitoring Reports, 2023.
[36] S. Jagannath v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 87.
[37] Supra note 1.
[38] Supra note 23
[39] Supra note 21
[40] In Re: Climate Justice for India, (2025) 4 SCC 22.
Name:- Saraswati Gupta.
College Name:- University of Lucknow
3yrs LL.B 5th sem.