The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has declared Tamil Nadu’s Tamirabharani (Porunai) river a deity, thereby granting it legal personhood to curb pollution from funeral rites and waste dumping.
This ruling, which imposes protective conditions on state officials, marks a significant revival of India’s eco-centric Earth Jurisprudence after earlier judicial setbacks.
Trying to ‘influence’ the judges who were to decide Sierra Club v. Morton [405 U.S. 727 (1972)], Professor Christopher Stone, fervently put forward a case to extend ‘legal standing’ to non-human entities, in his classic work Should Trees Have Standing? — Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects (Trees), thereby giving a formal voice to Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic. Though the outcome was not what he expected — and the earlier decisions in Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission [1965] and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe [1971] were overturned, Justice Douglas’ celebrated dissent did provide a glimmer of hope.
In India, courts have at various points of time tried to incorporate environmental ideals in its decisions — thanks to the rich cultural and historical significance that India has had over a long time. The Supreme Court of India’s observation in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors [2012], that “Environmental justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of anthropocentric to eco-centric”, is a shining example of the legal system’s environment friendly approach. However, has it really translated in action is a question that one needs to ponder on.
An eco-centric view promotes, firstly, the idea that the entity that seeks to approach the court for relief need be treated as a ‘legal person’; secondly, the injury to the entity itself need be accounted for; thirdly, relief that it sought directly need flow to the benefit of the entity itself; and fourthly, breaks free from the Hohfeldian ‘right’-‘duty’ concept, and should possess only rights.
The Indian experiment with Rights of Nature, albeit being a short one, did have its fair share of ups and downs. While one might come across a number of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court as well as by various High Courts, which fostered a symbiotic relation between humans and nature, the number of cases which extended ‘legal personality’ to non-human as well as non-living entities, were, safe to say, very rare.
When Justice Rajiv Sharma of the Uttarakhand High Court, for the very first time, took a different approach in Mohammed Salim v. State of Uttarakhand [2017], the Ganges and the Yamuna were treated as ‘legal persons’, but the fourth ideal of an eco-centric approach was not met. The same line of approach was followed in Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. UOI and Ors [2018] — wherein the entire animal kingdom was treated as a legal entity, as well as in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [2019]. In Suo motu v. Chandigarh Administration [2020], too the same logic was extended to the Sukhna river, and it was held to be “a legal entity/legal person/juristic person/ juridicial person/moral person/artificial person for its survival, preservation and conservation having distinct persona with corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person, and the citizens of the state were appointed as guardians as well”.
One cannot but notice that the trend has been that the fourth ideal — that in an eco-centric view an entity need possess only ‘rights’ was followed, in stark difference of the New Zealand approach which had provided for the same status to the Whanganui River, around the same time, wherein, the river possessed only rights. The imposition of duties is counterproductive as it paves the way to litigation wherein the entity can now be sued as well. To reduce such an entity to be one which can sue and be sued is not the right way to achieve eco-centric ideals.
However, this concern proved to be of lesser significance on an imminent basis, as the Supreme Court of India stayed the judgement of the Uttarakhand High Court citing administrative challenges — the High Court had placed the responsibility on the citizens of the state to act as parens patriae and take care of the rivers; but the river did pass through many states — and that was not practical. Given India’s rich heritage coupled with an inbuilt ecological consciousness, this was ironical to say the least.
The Supreme Court of India, at last, in 2023, while hearing the The People’s Charioteer Organization case, extinguished all hope towards achieving legal personality status to non-human as well as non-living entities — when it held that such an extension is not possible. Stone’s statement in Trees — wherein he pointed out that ‘every time an entity is given a legal status, it is met with either ridicule or fear’, was validated, yet again.
The last week of July 2026, however, was a shot in the arm for Rights of Nature aficionados, when the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, found a way to circumvent the Supreme Court’s position on locus standi. While hearing the Tamirabharani case [Sivanupandian v. District Collector, Tirunelveli and Ors., WP(MD) No. 18560 of 2026], evidence placed before the court threw light on the aftereffects of obsequies performed regularly on the banks of the river. Ninety tonnes of clothes, two tonnes of ash and around three tonnes of other waste materials were collected from the river within a span of three weeks. Owing to the Supreme Court’s stand on extending legal personality, the Madurai Bench charted a new course —and held the Tamirabharani as a deity, thereby making the river a ‘legal person’— specifically aimed to ensure that the river is not polluted. The court laid down specific conditions that need be followed and also directed the state officials to ensure that the orders are being complied with.
This decision — the need of the hour, has to be seen as a reinvigorated step towards achieving the ideals of Earth Jurisprudence, and the rationale need be extended to various other similar instances as well, lest India falls behind the rest of the world which have made enormous strides in Earth Jurisprudence.
Manjeri Subin Sunder Raj is the only Indian member of the Expert Group on Harmony with Nature, United Nations. He teaches law at CHRIST University, Bengaluru
Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth