"Madras High Court grants river legal personhood via deity classification"
Rights of Nature (RoN)
A legal and philosophical framework that grants natural entities (rivers, forests) enforceable legal rights.
Legal personhood
The capacity of an entity to hold rights, sue, and be sued in a court of law.
The concept of granting legal rights to natural entities, rivers, forests, ecosystems, is rooted in the broader Rights of Nature (RoN) movement. The philosophical foundation was laid by Christopher Stone's 1972 essay arguing that natural objects should have legal standing. In India, the movement gained early judicial traction when the Uttarakhand High Court, in Mohammed Salim v. State of Uttarakhand (2017), declared the Ganga and Yamuna as legal persons with rights equivalent to a living human being. The Supreme Court promptly stayed this judgment in SLP (C) No. 16879 of 2017, signalling institutional caution about extending legal personhood beyond established categories.
Indian environmental jurisprudence has otherwise been progressive. The Supreme Court's observation in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [(2012) 3 SCC 277] that environmental justice requires a shift from anthropocentric to eco-centric principles showed the court's philosophical openness. Yet, in the People's Charioteer Organization case (2023), the Supreme Court categorically held that legal personhood cannot be extended to non-human entities, closing the door that the Uttarakhand High Court had briefly opened. India thus lagged behind global developments, where countries like Ecuador and New Zealand had already recognised rivers as legal persons.
Legal personhood is a foundational concept in law. It confers on an entity the capacity to hold rights, sue, and be sued. Traditionally, only natural persons (humans) and artificial persons (companies, trusts, registered bodies) qualify. Extending this to natural objects requires either legislative action or judicial creativity. Courts in India have used the concept of a "deity" as an artificial legal person, temples and their presiding deities have long been recognised as juristic persons capable of owning property and initiating litigation. This is a well-settled principle in Hindu personal law and has been upheld repeatedly by Indian courts.
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 is the primary statute governing river pollution. …
Consider the following statements:
1.Animal Welfare Board of India is established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986.
2.National Tiger Conservation Authority is a statutory body.
3.National Ganga River Basin Authority is chaired by the Prime Minister.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements regarding the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974:
1.Section 24 prohibits the discharge of pollutants into water bodies.
2.The Act defines 'pollutant' under Section 2(e).
3.The Act defines 'pollution' to include alteration of the biological properties of water.
4.The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 defines 'air pollutant' under Section 2(a).
Which of the statements given above are correct?
Which of the following correctly matches the legal development with the court/authority responsible?
With reference to the Rights of Nature movement in India, consider the following statements:
1.The Supreme Court stayed the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment granting legal personhood to the Ganga and Yamuna in 2017.
2.The Supreme Court in the People's Charioteer Organization case (2023) held that legal personhood can be extended to rivers but not to forests.
3.The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) in 2026 conferred limited legal personhood on the Tamirabharani river by classifying it as a deity.
4.Ecuador's 2008 Constitution is among the earliest examples of legislative recognition of Rights of Nature.
How many of the above statements are correct?
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in 2026 granted limited legal personhood to the Tamirabharani river primarily to:
Assertion (A): The court classified the river as a deity, a category already recognised as a juristic person under Indian law.
Reason (R): The Supreme Court's 2023 ruling had barred extension of legal personhood to non-human entities, making a direct grant of legal personhood impermissible.
Consider the following statements regarding the regulation of cremains (cremated human remains) in water bodies:
1.The US Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 1972 permits scattering of human cremains at sea at a minimum distance of three nautical miles from land.
2.The same US Act permits scattering of pet cremains under the same conditions as human cremains.
3.Under the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, the immersion of cremains in rivers is explicitly prohibited as a 'pollutant'.
4.Scientific studies indicate that cremains pose moderate to high ecological risk in lotic (flowing water) systems.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account