INTRODUCTION
From time immemorial humans have exploited nature for their gains. Today, natural resources are near the grave of extinction where several other natural resources have become extinct. We talk about protecting the environment and have come up with legislative laws and awareness to stop exploiting nature and develop a way towards ‘sustainable development.’ A particularly ambitious and all-encompassing plan for global development by 2030 is outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals. A major worldwide issue, climate change has a profound impact on livelihoods, water resources, food security, and health. Extreme weather, temperature increases, and sea level rise could cause millions of people to be displaced, harm economies, and exacerbate inequality if nothing is done. Because it connects with so many other Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), such as clean water (SDG 6), sustainable cities (Goal 11), and poverty reduction (SDG 1), Goal 13 is essential to realizing a sustainable future. Goal 13 ‘Climate Action’ of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), implements the countries to act rapidly to reduce the effects of climate change. By reducing the emission of greenhouse gases, and bringing resolution related to disasters that have changed the climate. In our country, India giving ‘Nature’ legal personhood would be a great initiative to recognize their legal rights and conserve them which are given only to the country’s citizens. It includes rivers, forests, and several other natural entities’s rights to have filed cases related to violation of their rights. Implementing ‘Legal personhood’ to nature is becoming important around the world and its examples are countries like Ecuador and New Zealand. Even in India, it has gotten the judiciary’s support. Though granting nature as legal personhood has been approved by the Indian Courts it is still a challenge to lay down a complete emerging legislative laws and policy matters related to legal personhood of the nature. Following consists of various Environmental Laws of India:
- ‘The Environment Protection Act of 1986’ Aims to safeguard and enhance the natural world.
- The first significant environmental protection law in India was ‘the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act of 1974’, which was put into effect to prevent and control pollution of water bodies.
- ‘The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010’ Was created to guarantee prompt and efficient handling of cases about environmental protection.
- India’s wildlife population is intended to be safeguarded and preserved through ‘the Wild Life (Protection) Act, of 1972’.
- ‘The Biological Diversity Act of 2002’: This law guarantees the equitable distribution of environmental benefits and the sustainable use of the environment.
- India’s forests are vital to the preservation of the planet’s ecosystem and water cycle, which is why ‘the Forest Conservation Act, of 1980’ Was passed.
Environmental protection is also covered by the following provisions of the Indian Constitution:
- According to Article 48(A), the state is required to work towards enhancing and protecting the environment, as well as preserving forests and wildlife.
- According to Article 51(A)(g), it is every citizen’s fundamental responsibility to preserve and enhance the natural environment.
IMPLEMENTING LEGAL PERSONHOOD IN INDIA: ‘GANGA’ AND ‘GLACIERS’ CASE
The Ganga Rights of Nature case pertains to a significant ruling rendered by the Uttarakhand High Court in 2017, which established the Ganga and Yamuna rivers as sentient beings possessing legal rights, comparable to those of an individual. The recognition of the ‘rights of nature’ to preserve the environment was a global movement that included this decision. It brought a new way of dealing with environmental conservation and exploiting resources for development, particularly with emerging methods of preservation of nature, its rights, and the environment. The case of ‘Ganga’ plays an important role in developing environmental jurisprudence and by providing the difficulties in implementing laws involving the rights of nature. Mohammed Salim v. State of Uttarakhand was an important case where it held a decision about an essential part of the Indian ecosystem, the ‘Ganga’ river, and it was also named a ‘national river’. The petitioner in this case directed the Court to the New Zealand laws that had granted the Whanganui River legal personhood not demanding to grant legal personhood to the river. The Court through suo moto recognized the Ganga River to be a living entity by observing the theories of legal personhood and decisions of the Supreme Court of India related to juristic persons. In the case of Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, Lalit Miglani, an advocate, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) exposing the Ganga’s pollution, which gave rise to the Glaciers case. The Glaciers Case on the Rights of Nature is one of several international and regional legal actions that, like the Ganga case, seek to safeguard glaciers by acknowledging them as living things or by giving them rights. Significant steps are being taken globally, especially in places like Argentina and Colombia, where glaciers and ecosystems have been the focus of legal protection under the rights of nature framework, even though no specific high-profile case has yet produced a direct ruling similar to rivers like Ganga or Whanganui. The Court said:
“The Glaciers including Gangotri and Yamunotri, rivers, streams, rivulets, lakes, air, meadows, dales, jungles, forests, wetlands, grasslands, springs and waterfalls, legal entity/legal person/juristic person/juridical person/moral person/artificial person having the status of a legal person, with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person, to preserve and conserve them. They are also accorded the rights akin to fundamental rights/legal rights.”
Including glaciers in the scope of nature’s rights could result in more robust legal safeguards against damaging practices like mining, deforestation, and carbon emissions. The court’s decision attempted to impose more stringent duties on the government to maintain and clean the rivers. Both cases’ rulings are praised for confirming reverence for the natural world and offering a fresh viewpoint on how humans and the environment can coexist in harmony with nature.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ESTABLISHING LEGAL PERSONHOOD
The concept of giving nature ‘rights’ into practice in India presents serious concerns in addition to possible advantages. The challenges and criticism are as:
- Realistic Enforcement Concerns: Although it may seem encouraging to acknowledge nature as a legal person, upholding these rights continues to be difficult. Following its ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court raised practical concerns: how can judges guarantee that rivers are accurately depicted? If there is a violation of the rights of nature, who is responsible? It is possible that the guardians chosen by the court do not always have the means or know-how to adequately defend the rights of nature.
- Possibility of Bureaucratic Excessive Authority: Appointing trustees or guardians to stand in for nature may result in inefficiencies or excessive bureaucracy. The basic intent behind giving nature legal rights may be compromised by these representatives’ actions, which could be motivated by political or commercial interests.
- Conflict with Developmental Goals: India is a developing country with high demands for urbanization, industrialization, and infrastructure development. Giving nature legal personhood could result in obstacles to development, which could slow economic growth and cause conflicts between the needs of human development and environmental preservation.
CONCLUSION
These two cases were the first step to granting ‘Legal Personhood’ to ‘Nature’. Though our Constitution states our Fundamental Rights such as Article 21 ‘Right to Life’ which has broader aspects such as ‘Right to Clean Air’, and ‘Right to Clean Water’, this right can only be protected if our environment is protected and preserved. In Today’s century, our right to have clean air and water will only be successful when we preserve and protect Nature’s right to have clean water bodies and surroundings. With growing industrialization, factories, and exploiting resources we came up with such a generation where Nature’s right to have its glorious resources is in extinction. A more robust foundation for stopping environmental deterioration might be offered by legal personhood. We do talk about our rights, but the concept of ‘Nature’s rights’ is the foremost important thing we have ignored in all these years. ‘Nature’ is our ‘Mother’ who serves us abundantly and we must protect and preserve ‘Nature’. Legislative initiatives could formally establish nature’s legal personhood in addition to judicial activism. It would be required to draft legislation outlining the rights of particular natural entities and establish procedures for guardianship, enforcement, and dispute resolution. The Ecuadorian Constitution, which protects the rights of nature, could serve as a model. Enacting legal personhood for nature in India would represent a radical change in the country’s environmental laws, possibly providing more robust safeguards for biodiversity and ecosystems. The realization of this idea, though, will require striking a balance between economic, cultural, and environmental concerns in addition to creating precise legal frameworks to protect the rights of the natural world. Even though Indian courts have come a long way in acknowledging the inherent worth of nature, more judicial, legislative, and administrative work is still needed for full implementation.
Author(s) Name: Isha Diwakar Madavi (Maharashtra National Law University Nagpur)
