Legal Rights of Rivers: A Paradigm Shift in Environmental Jurisprudence

Abstract

This article explores the changing perspectives on granting legal rights to rivers and ecosystems, which marks a significant shift in environmental law. The existing and traditional ecological laws are not sufficient to safeguard these natural entities. This article explores the recognition of the legal rights of the rivers through the leading judgements in Indian jurisprudence, these leading cases showcase how the Indian judiciary provided the embedded ecological concerns by the legal frameworks. Representing the global policies from various foreign countries to safeguard these natural entities this article discusses the necessity of the adoption of these significant policies. From the need for Indigenous participation and decentralized governance for securing the rivers to the critical challenges and obstacles of implementation of the legal frameworks and other issues, this article covers the solutions to these problems also by proposing the strict implementation of the existing laws, the establishment of NRPA, appointment of the local peoples in river governance. The legal rights of these entities will help to build sustainable development and balance out the ecological system for future generations.

Introduction

The concept of giving legal rights to rivers and the whole ecosystem deserves a paradigm shift in environmental law. The increase in the natural degradation of the ecosystem concerns the transformation or amendment of environmental legal frameworks. Traditional environmental laws failed to protect the ecosystem as they mainly focused on human activities rather than on the value of nature and the environment. The natural movement is concerned that rivers and ecosystems should be granted legal personhood, such that they can hold rights similar to those of humans or corporations, they must have their legal status. This legal status allows these natural entities to have their interests represented in the court, helping to protect their rights and protect them from getting harmed. Granting legal rights to reverse involves changing how we view them in the legal system so that they can be protected from pollution and harm in India. There have been efforts like the Uttarakhand High Court ruling that recognise the Ganga and Yamuna rivers as legal persons marking a significant step forward, but also highlighting chain challenges in making this idea work efficiently. This article explores India’s rivers and ecosystems and aims to deepen our understanding of this effort and its importance for environmental protection in India.

Theoretical and Legal Framework

In Indian law, except for the natural entities all are allowed legal personhood. This recognition of rivers and ecosystems as legal persons protects them from claiming any rights as human beings. The Indian legal system has an important role in enlarging legal personhood to natural resources.

The Indian Constitution governs provisions, which focus mainly on environmental protection.  Articles 48A[1] and 51A(g)[2] define the responsibility of citizens and states in the protection of the environment and natural resources. The protection of life and individual liberty is described in Article 21[3] of the Indian Constitution. This provision also laid down upon the natural entities as well they also have their liberty. In a few cases such as rural litigation and entitlement, Kendra v. the state of UP and Subash Kumar v. the State of Bihar, a pollution-free environment is a fundamental right of every individual Supreme Court directs.

The Environment Protection Act, of 1986 came into force after the Bhopal Gas incident. To protect the Environment and take some proper actions against the persons who continuously harm nature this was the primary aim of this act. Section 3[4] this act deals with the power of the central government to take measures to protect and improve the environment.

The Water Prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1974[5], is aimed at preventing water pollution and protecting the water bodies from getting harmed. It establishes central and state pollution control boards to maintain the water quality and prevent industrial discharge into reverse and other water bodies.

Pioneering Judicial Decisions in Indian Environmental Law

The leading case of Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand[6] represents a markable environmental justice in India. The Uttarakhand High Court ordered within the judgement that The Ganga and The Yamuna rivers must be acknowledged as ‘living entities’ including their lawful rights[7]. Mohd Salim filed a PIL in 2014 under Article 48A which refers to (The State shall endeavour to protect and elevate the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the state), Article 51A(g) which emphasizes securing and perfecting the natural terrain, and to have sympathy for the living brutes), still, the Uttarakhand High Court in this verdict states the ecological degradation of the rivers because of pollution, mining, and unregulated waste management. The petitioner additionally explains that the Ganga Management Board which was beneath the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, of 2000, provoked the issues[8]. In its judgement, the court also extended the legal rights to the rivers and their tributaries, streams, and glaciers, strengthening their cultural, spiritual, and ecological significance.

In the case of M.C. Mehta v Union of India[9], the whole country watches the essential points in fighting against river pollution in India, specifically addressing the changes in industrial and municipal discharges in the river Ganges. A prominent environmentalist and counsel M.C. Mehta lodged this case, under Section 24[10] and Section 25[11] of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Section 22[12] of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, Section 3[13] of the Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986. The Supreme Court directed strict enforcement of environmental laws in its judgement. It held the companies and industries accountable based upon the Doctrine of Absolute Liability for releasing untreated effluents containing hazardous chemicals like sulfur, chromium, etc. into the river[14]. Mandating tanneries to install effluent treatment plants (ETP) in six months or closing their company also requires municipalities to build sewage treatment plants to stop untreated waste from mixing in the water. The court also stated that the pollution controls board at the state and central level have to monitor who was violating the rules. The topmost principles like sustainable development and the public trust doctrine became more symmetric in this judgment.

The case of Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India[15] laid down some important principles such as the ‘Polluter Pays Principle and the Precautionary Principle’ in the environmental law of India. The case was brought by an NGO that claimed tanneries were polluting the river Palar, which revealed how thick materials and chemicals pollute the ecosystem.[16]. The Supreme Court ordered the tanneries to reimburse the damaged items and recoup the financial losses until the restoration was complete. It established institutional mechanisms like the Loss of Ecology Authority (LoEA) to assess claims of compensation while directing the non-compliant industries to build pollution control systems[17]. The Green Tribunal have to look upon the environmental issues, according to the order of the Madras High Court. However, in addressing the industrial liability for the water pollution crisis nationwide the verdict faced some hurdles. This Case remained a leading case in environmental jurisprudence, establishing the important precedents. The Court emphasized absolute responsibility and ecological restoration to protect the environment. This case assures economic growth did not compromise ecological integrity.

Global Perspectives on Legal Rights for Rivers and Ecosystems

To improve environmental protection, several nations including the US, Ecuador, Colombia, New Zealand and India have implemented various legal frameworks to protect natural entities. While India has made a significant judicial intervention, other countries have gone further by granting legal personhood to rivers and ecosystems.

In New Zealand, the Maori community has been living along the Whanganui River for hundreds of years. The river is the main source of their food, and fishing and it was used to treat sick people. They treat the river as their ancestor. When the Britishers arrived in the 1800s and began living near the river, the pollution of the river started. Because of the industrial waste, and urban sewage, the river was polluted, and the protest was started to demand legal rights over the river. After many protests, in 1999, the tribunal announced the river as a treasure of the Maori community but still the river has not been granted any legal protection. The Whanganui River became the first river in the world to have its legal personhood in 2017[18], through granting the Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, 2017[19]. Now the river has equivalent rights and liabilities as a person has.

Eucador’s right to nature is seen as a blueprint for granting rights to the ecosystem and rivers. Oil extraction in the Amazon has led to deforestation and contaminated water sources. Eucador’s indigenous communities, have a deep spiritual and cultural connection to nature, often referred to as “Pachamama” (Mother Earth). Their Philosophy “Sumak-Kawsay” (Good living) promotes harmony between humans and nature. They protested for the rights of nature. In 2008, the Ecuadorian constituent assembly recognised nature as a legal entity.[20] With enforceable rights, it was the first country to recognize such rights of nature.

In 2016 Colombian constitutional court recognised Atrato River to have its right[21]. It is the first Latin American river and the world’s third river to possess its right and one of the most polluted rivers over the last thirty years. It is because of extraction activities in the region over centuries, such as banana and oil palm plantation, cocoa cultivation, and mining of alluvial gold and platinum. In 2016, the court recognised the Atrato River as a living entity with rights and appointed guardians from the state and the Indigenous community for its protection and to take necessary steps towards illegal mining for the restoration of the river.

To protect rivers from further contamination and degradation, India should adopt global policies from Colombia, New Zealand, Ecuador and many more. One of the most effective methods is to make a committee that shall consist of government officials, environmental experts and Indigenous communities, as this committee will monitor pollution, prevent illegal encroachments and restore degraded ecosystems. India should grant legal rights to holy rivers like Ganga, Yamuna and other critical rivers. Another method, India should adopt a decentralised community-led river governance system because a centralised approach to river management has failed due to bureaucratic inefficiencies, and weak enforcement of environmental law.

Challenges in Granting Legal Rights for the Rivers

As all of us are aware of the fact that the earth is covered with 70% of water but less than 1% of water is drinkable and rivers are the major source of freshwater. The most imminent challenge in river protection was economic growth, as the extent of exploitation of natural resources is directly proportional to economic development. Another challenge is that the river can not run according to manmade political boundaries. For instance, the Teesta River serves as a natural border between Bangladesh and India while the Indus River originates in China and eventually flows through India before reaching Pakistan. If India makes a dam on the Indus and Teesta rivers, then it will affect the flow of the river in Pakistan and Bangladesh and become a major problem in assessing what is considered sustainable use and what is not. This led to cross-border disputes before granting legal personhood.

The next issue is about the ambiguity of the term legal personhood, the world doesn’t have a complete understanding of the term and how the right of river works. The states don’t have clear mechanisms and environmental laws to hold polluters accountable. Another one is, that India is developing and the world’s most populated country. Around 21% of people are poor in India, they can’t meet their necessities. During this scenario, the Indian government will focus more on their citizens and development rather than giving nature legal personhood which can slow down the economic growth.

Indian rivers are worshipped as God due to this they are polluted because people take baths in the river believing that it washes away their sins as seen during Mahakumbh (2025). The Ganga River was highly polluted. Other factors like dumping dead bodies in the river or dumping idols in the river as seen during Ganesh Chaturthi. If the government wants to bring laws for the preservation of rivers they can’t do so successfully because individual sentiments are attached to rivers and they don’t want government to intervene in that matter.

Strengthening Legal Protections for Rivers in India

The most crucial parts of our lives are rivers and ecosystems because they give us Water, food and other amenities. But because of heavy industrialization, pollution and changes in the atmosphere affect many rivers. By spreading awareness and understanding about the legal rights of rivers and ecosystems can protect them. Already some countries adopted the legal rights of rivers and ecosystems so it is necessary for India to adopt the same, by analysing the legal framework of India to improve the ecosystem.

India has to build a National River Protection Authority (NRPA) to look after river conservation and also ensure the protection of the river, monitor the health of the river by using scientific data, and traditional knowledge, and guide from the local community people. They have to look at the amount of pollution mixing in the river and according to the report they have to communicate with the state and central government for the proper management of the river. They have to look at the development projects that are harming the river and implement the river restoration and cleaning project based on the health and atmosphere of the river.

It should be ensured that there is the necessity of separate legislation for the rivers and the existing laws need amendments. Legal rights for rivers are necessary for their long-term survival and also it will secure the future of the ecosystem humans have to live with them thus sustainable development can be possible.

Conclusion

This article showcases the theoretical foundations, leading verdicts, and global perspectives towards nature with a particular focus on India’s changing implementations on this issue. The recognition of the legal rights of the rivers and ecosystems will evolve the environmental jurisprudence, and the evolution has already manifested in India through constitutional provisions and other legal frameworks. The above-discussed cases established some significant precedents that represented some essential values of the natural entities and assured the functions of society to secure them. Foreign countries like New Zealand, Ecuador, Colombia, USA have already pioneered various approaches to implement the rights of the rivers providing them their valuable legal right, However, certain complexities and challenges remain. But the increasing environmental issues the legal rights of the river and the ecosystem paradigm offer an option for a sustainable relationship with nature. Giving the legal rights to the river improves more protection of these legal entities, but the ultimate aim should be to safeguard these natural entities and the ecosystems from pollution and give a well-balanced ecology system to our future generations.

 

References

[1] Constitution of India 1950, art 48A

[2] Constitution of India 1950, art 51A(g)

[3] Constitution of India 1950, art 21

[4] The Environment Protection Act, of 1986, s 3

[5] Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974

[6] The State of Uttarakhand & Ors. v. Mohd. Salim & Ors [2017] WPPIL No. 126/2014

[7] Anupam Trivedi and Kamal Jagati, ‘Uttarakhand HC declares Ganga, Yamuna living entities, gives them legal rights’ (Hindustan Times, 22 March 2017) <https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/uttarakhand-hc-says-ganga-is-india-s-first-living-entity-grants-it-rights-equal-to-humans/story-VoI6DOG71fyMDihg5BuGCL.html> accessed 13 April 2025

[8] Justice Rajiv Sharma, ‘Salim v. State of Uttarakhand Writ Petition (PIL) No.126 of 2014 (December 5, 2016 and March 20, 2017)’ (Environmental Law Alliance Worldwide, 20 March 2017) <https://elaw.org/resource/salim-v-state-uttarakhand-writ-petition-pil-no126-2014-december-5-2016-and-march-20-2017> accessed 13 April 2025

[9] M.C. Mehta And Anr v. Union of India & Ors [1986] 1987 AIR 1086

[10] Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 24

[11] Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, s 25

[12] The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1981, s 22

[13] The Environmental (Protection) Act, 1986, s 3

[14] Saumya Patel, ‘Case Analysis MC Mehta v Union of India: Ganga Pollution Case’ (LawFoyer, 19 June 2021) <https://lawfoyer.in/mc-mehta-vs-union-of-india-ganga/> accessed 13 April 2025

[15] Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors [1996] AIR 1996 SUPREME COURT 2715

[16] Shruti Roy, ‘Case Analysis: Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors, (1996) | Significance of the ‘Precautionary Principle’ & the ‘Polluter Pays Principle’ (Legal Bites, 3 October 2023) <https://www.legalbites.in/environment-law/case-analysis-vellore-citizens-welfare-forum-v-union-of-india-and-ors-1996-965278> accessed 14 April 2025

[17] Rawlaw, ‘Supreme Court: “Polluter Pays Principle is Absolute” – Tanneries in Vellore Liable for Continuing Environmental Damage Until Full Ecological Restoration, Supreme Court Orders Reassessment of Compensation and Strict Enforcement of Pollution Control Measures’ (Rawlaw, 30 January 2025) <https://rawlaw.in/supreme-court-polluter-pays-principle-is-absolute-tanneries-in-vellore-liable-for-continuing-environmental-damage-until-full-ecological-restoration-supreme-court-orders-reassessment-of/> accessed 14 April 2025

[18] Julia Hollingsworth, ‘This river in New Zealand is legally a person. Here’s how it happened’ (CNN World, December 11 2020) <https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/11/asia/whanganui-river-new-zealand-intl-hnk-dst/index.html> accessed 14 April 2025

[19] Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act, 2017

[20] Becca Warner, ‘This Ecuadorian forest thrived amid deforestation after being granted legal rights’ (BBC, 17 June 2024) <https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240614-how-los-cedros-forest-in-ecuador-was-granted-legal-personhood> accessed 14 April 2025

[21] Mihnea Tănăsescu “et al.” ‘Rights of nature and rivers in Ecuador’s Constitutional Court’ (2024) 1-23 The International Journal of Human Rights <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13642987.2024.2314536> accessed 14 April 2025