In March 2017, an Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers living legal entities, which means persons in the eyes of the law.[1] The headline travelled around the world. And then, just months later, the Supreme Court stayed the order.[2] The rivers, of course, kept flowing. And kept getting polluted.
WHAT IS LEGAL PERSONHOOD AND WHY DOES IT MATTER?
Legal personhood is not as exotic a concept as it sounds. A company is a legal person.[3] A temple trust is a legal person. Even an idol in a Hindu temple has been recognised as a juristic person capable of owning property and being represented in court.
In Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v Somnath Dass,[4] Indian courts affirmed that juristic personality can be conferred on non-human entities, granting only those rights and obligations recognised by law. A legal person can own property, sue and be sued, and have rights enforced on its behalf.
The argument for rivers follows the same logic. If a river has legal standing, it can be represented in court through authorised guardians. Damage to it becomes legally actionable, not just an environmental inconvenience but a violation of its rights. The polluter is not merely breaking a regulation but harming a legal entity. On paper, it is a powerful idea but far more complicated in practice.
THE 2017 UTTARAKHAND JUDGMENT
In Mohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna as living legal entities, along with their tributaries, streams and wetlands. The Court appointed the Director General of the Namami Gange project and the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand as their guardians, responsible for protecting the rivers and preserving their legal rights. The reasoning drew on parens patriae, which authorises courts to act in the interests of those who cannot represent themselves, and on the deep cultural and religious significance these rivers hold for people. Weeks later, in Lalit Miglani v State of Uttarakhand,[5] the same court extended similar personhood to essentially Uttarakhand’s entire natural ecosystem. The ambition was breathtaking but with implementation challenges.
THE SUPREME COURT STAY AND ITS CONSTITUTIONAL IMPLICATIONS
The Supreme Court stayed the Uttarakhand High Court’s orders.[6] Let’s understand why.
First, there were substantial federalism concerns.[7] Rivers like the Ganga flow through multiple states with distinct governance structures and water rights frameworks. A High Court of one state conferring legal personhood with obligations enforceable across state boundaries raised significant questions about the scope of judicial authority.
Second, appointing state officials as legal guardians of rivers created potential liability concerns. If the rivers as legal persons could sue and be sued, guardians could face consequences for third-party acts, pointing to an unworkable arrangement without a clear legislative framework.[8]
Third, the judgment had been passed without adequate notice to affected parties whose activities along the river banks would now potentially constitute violations of the rights of a legal person.
Fourth, conferring legal personality on natural objects has historically been the preserve of legislatures, not courts[9]. While judicial innovation is valuable, the scope of rights conferred and the corresponding obligations require democratic deliberation. The Supreme Court’s intervention is therefore better understood as raising legitimate institutional concerns rather than rejecting environmental protection.
A COMPARISON: NEW ZEALAND’S WHANGANUI RIVER
New Zealand’s Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017[10] is frequently cited as a successful model of river personhood. The comparison with India is instructive, though it must account for significant differences in constitutional structure, governance frameworks and context.
The New Zealand model differs from India’s judicial approach in three important dimensions. First, it is legislative in origin, enacted by Parliament after decades of negotiation between the Crown and Māori communities carrying democratic legitimacy that a court order cannot. It also includes clearly defined governance structures, a dedicated budget and implementation apparatus from the outset.
Second, the Act defines Te Awa Tupua’s personhood precisely, granting specifically enumerated powers and protections rather than all the rights of a natural person. This avoids the doctrinal ambiguity that troubled the Uttarakhand approach.
Third, the model embeds indigenous Māori relationships with the river as a foundational governance principle, ensuring community participation rather than relying solely on state officials.
It is worth acknowledging that the New Zealand model also faces implementation challenges. The relationship between the Act and existing water management regulations, enforcement against third-party polluters and the practical exercise of legal personality remain evolving questions. The comparison should remain analytical rather than treat New Zealand as a settled success.
WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON THE GROUND?
The Ganga’s environmental challenges remain significant[11]. Central Pollution Control Board data indicate [12]continuing concerns about sewage discharge, industrial effluents from tanneries and textile units and encroachments on river floodplains. National Green Tribunal proceedings[13] across multiple states have documented ongoing violations, with monitoring reports showing that several stretches fail to meet prescribed water quality standards.
The Namami Gange programme has made measurable progress[14] in constructing sewage treatment plants, river surface cleaning and afforestation. Parliamentary committee reports, however, have noted persistent gaps in fund utilisation and project delays.[15]
LEGAL PERSONHOOD AND IMPLEMENTATION: AN ONGOING QUESTION
Subsequent litigation before the National Green Tribunal has continued to address river pollution and environmental compliance, but the legal personhood framework created by the Uttarakhand High Court has not been fully operationalised. The challenges are best understood as ongoing legal questions rather than settled failures.[16]
Several institutional design questions remain unresolved: who bears financial responsibility for remediation when a river’s rights are violated? How does legal personhood interact with existing water allocation rights? What enforcement mechanisms can operate across state boundaries without jurisdictional conflict? These require legislative action to resolve.
THE CASE FOR LEGISLATIVE ACTION
The Uttarakhand experience suggests that while judicial innovation can highlight environmental imperatives, durable legal personhood for natural entities requires legislative intervention not simply for institutional durability, but because legislation offers three things court orders cannot.
First, democratic legitimacy. A Parliament that enacts rights for rivers must account to the electorate for the consequences, creating incentives for workable institutional design rather than aspirational declarations.
Second, comprehensive governance design. Legislation can establish dedicated bodies, define funding mechanisms, specify enforcement procedures and resolve conflicts with existing legal rights, which are the very elements whose absence created problems in Uttarakhand.
Third, federal coordination. Central legislation could establish a framework applicable across all states through which a river flows, resolving jurisdictional fragmentation that a single state High Court cannot address.
Judicial innovation and legislative action are not mutually exclusive. Courts can continue to interpret environmental laws expansively and signal the need for reform. But a comprehensive river personhood framework ultimately requires Parliament.
CONCLUSION
The story of river personhood in India traces an arc from judicial ambition through constitutional complexity to institutional challenge. The Uttarakhand High Court’s 2017 judgments established that Indian law has the doctrinal flexibility to accommodate novel forms of legal personality. The Supreme Court’s stay established that such innovation requires careful attention to constitutional structure, governance design and the distribution of rights and obligations.
The New Zealand experience demonstrates that durable river personhood is achievable when grounded in legislative authority, community participation and dedicated institutional infrastructure, though even that model continues to evolve.
For India, the questions remain open.
These are questions that environmental jurisprudence, legislative reform and democratic deliberation must collectively address. For now, it is a work in progress.
Author: Poplani (National Law School of India University, Bengaluru)
References:
[1] Mohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No. 126 of 2014, Uttarakhand High Court, judgment dated 20 March 2017.
[2] State of Uttarakhand v Mohd Salim SLP (C) Nos 16879–16880 of 2017 (SC, 7 July 2017).
[3] Companies Act 2013, s 9; Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL).
[4] Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee v Somnath Dass AIR 1959 Punjab 90.
[5] Lalit Miglani v State of Uttarakhand & Others (2017) Writ Petition (PIL) No 140 of 2015 (Uttarakhand High Court).
[6] Uttarakhand Irrigation Department v Mohd Salim (2017) Civil Appeal No 2730 of 2017 (Supreme Court of India) (stay order).
[7] Erin O’Donnell and Julia Talbot-Jones, ‘Creating Legal Rights for Rivers: Lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and India’ (2018) 23 Ecology and Society 7.
[8] Mihnea Tănăsescu, Understanding the Rights of Nature (Transcript Publishing 2022) ch 4.
[9] Erin O’Donnell, Legal Rights for Rivers: Competition, Collaboration and Water Governance (Routledge 2020).
[10] Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (New Zealand).
[11] Central Pollution Control Board, National Water Quality Monitoring Programme: River Water Quality Report (CPCB, latest available report).
[12] Central Pollution Control Board, River Water Quality Annual Report (latest available edition).
[13] M C Mehta v Union of India (Ganga Pollution) (1988) 1 SCC 471; National Green Tribunal, News Item Published in The Hindu Authored by Jacob Koshy (Original Application No 200/2014).
[14] National Mission for Clean Ganga, Annual Report 2023–24 (Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India).
[15] Department-related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Water Resources, Report on the Implementation of the Namami Gange Programme (Rajya Sabha Secretariat, latest report).
[16] Akash Vashishtha v Union of India, Original Application No 673 of 2018 (National Green Tribunal).
