By Deepak Parvatiyar*
Can India’s Rivers Win Human Status?
The legal recognition of Indian rivers as juristic persons, notably the Ganga and Yamuna, has resurfaced as a pressing issue in 2025, driven by recent judicial and legislative developments that underscore the urgent need to address river pollution and ecological degradation.
The Uttarakhand High Court’s July 30, 2025, order to close 48 illegally operated stone crushers in Haridwar, prompted by a public interest litigation (PIL) from Matri Sadan, and a Rajya Sabha bill introduced in February 2025 by nominated Member of Parliament (MP) Satnam Singh Sandhu, the ‘Recognition of Legal Person Status of Rivers Bill, 2024’, proposing statutory legal personhood for rivers have reignited debate over granting rivers human-like rights.
Also read:
- क्यों है ज़रूरी गंगा-यमुना को ‘जीवित माँ’ का क़ानूनी दर्जा देना?
- Uttarakhand Ruling Fuels Push for Ganga’s Living Entity Status
These events, coupled with ongoing advocacy from environmentalists like Dr. Rajendra Singh, highlight the immediate provocation: a growing recognition that existing laws are insufficient to protect India’s rivers from mining, damming, and pollution. This report details the judicial, legislative, constitutional, and practical dimensions of declaring rivers as living human beings, presenting all legal points and counterpoints to offer a comprehensive perspective grounded in verified judicial observations as of August 29, 2025.
On March 20, 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court, in ‘Mohammad Salim versus State of Uttarakhand’, declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers juristic persons, granting them the rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person to enhance their protection against pollution from industrial discharge, sewage, and illegal mining.
The court, inspired by New Zealand’s 2017 legislation granting legal personhood to the Whanganui River, appointed the Director of the National Mission for Clean Ganga, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand, and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand as guardians to act as “loco parentis” for the rivers’ protection. A subsequent ruling on March 30, 2017, in ‘Lalit Miglani versus State of Uttarakhand’, extended this status to glaciers, streams, and other natural entities feeding the rivers, citing their critical role in sustaining ecosystems and half of India’s population. The court invoked Article 48-A and Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, which mandate environmental protection and citizen responsibility, arguing that legal personhood would enable the rivers to sue polluters and resist encroachments, aligning with precedents like ‘Yogendra Nath Naskar versus CIT Calcutta’, where Hindu deities were recognised as juristic persons.
The court’s reasoning included references to the Ganga’s sacred status in Hinduism, which raised Constitutional concerns under India’s secular framework, as the judiciary must remain neutral in religious matters per the Preamble and Articles 14, 15, and 25, potentially prioritising religious considerations over universal environmental needs, such as access to clean water for communities relying on rivers for livelihoods.
On July 7, 2017, the Supreme Court of India stayed the High Court’s order following a Special Leave Petition (SLP, No. 33968/2017) by the Uttarakhand government, supported by the Central Government. The bench, comprising Chief Justice J.S. Khehar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, identified several legal and practical issues. Firstly, the ruling lacked clarity on the scope of rights and liabilities, raising concerns about accountability for natural events like floods, as guardians could face lawsuits for damages, imposing an impractical financial burden. Secondly, the Ganga and Yamuna’s inter-state nature, flowing through Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, and West Bengal, and into Bangladesh, created jurisdictional challenges, as Uttarakhand officials lacked authority beyond state borders, conflicting with the Centre’s authority over inter-state rivers under Entry 56 of the Union List. Thirdly, the absence of a statutory framework to operationalise legal personhood made enforcement unfeasible, as no mechanism existed for inter-state coordination. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court overstepped its writ jurisdiction, as the original PIL addressed illegal mining, not personhood, suggesting judicial overreach.
While the Supreme Court did not explicitly address the religious framing, its emphasis on jurisdictional and statutory issues implies that the High Court’s Hindu-centric rationale could complicate enforcement across India’s multi-religious and federal structure, raising concerns about compliance with the secular principles upheld in ‘S.R. Bommai versus Union of India’ (1994).
The Constitutional concerns arising from the Uttarakhand High Court’s ruling, as inferred from court observations, centre on India’s secular framework, a basic feature of the Constitution affirmed in ‘S.R. Bommai versus Union of India’ (1994), which mandates equal treatment of all religions and separation of religion from state actions. The High Court’s reference to the Ganga’s sacred status in Hinduism, as documented in the ‘Mohammad Salim’ judgment, risks prioritising religious considerations over universal environmental needs, such as access to clean water or flood control for communities dependent on rivers for fishing, farming, or transportation, potentially conflicting with Article 14 (equality before law). The selective application of personhood to the Ganga and Yamuna, rivers with Hindu significance, could create an unequal treatment of rivers, as the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional concerns suggest challenges in applying state-specific, religiously framed rulings to inter-state rivers, raising equality issues under Article 14.
Additionally, enforcing policies emphasising religious reverence could restrict access to river resources, potentially infringing on Article 25 (freedom of religion) if non-Hindu river-based practices, such as fishing or ceremonial uses by other faiths, are limited. These concerns align with the Supreme Court’s broader caution in ‘Indian Young Lawyers Association versus State of Kerala’ (2018), where judicial endorsement of religious practices was scrutinised for secular compliance, and ‘Subhash Kumar versus State of Bihar’ (1991), which established the right to a clean environment under Article 21 as a universal entitlement. The Supreme Court’s stay indirectly highlights these issues by noting the ruling’s impracticality in a federal, multi-religious context, suggesting that a Hindu-centric approach could undermine uniform enforcement.
The Supreme Court’s stay, still in effect as of August 29, 2025, has paused the application of legal personhood, but the issue remains alive due to recent developments. The Uttarakhand High Court’s July 30, 2025, order, responding to Matri Sadan’s PIL, directed the closure of 48 stone crushers in Haridwar for violating Central Pollution Control Board guidelines and National Mission for Clean Ganga directives, leading to the sealing of 60 units by August 2, 2025. This action, challenged by the Haridwar Stone Crushers Association via an SLP, was dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 25, 2025, reflects ongoing judicial efforts to curb Ganga pollution, echoing the 2017 personhood ruling’s intent but adopting a secular approach by focusing on environmental compliance.
Additionally, Satnam Singh Sandhu’s 2025 bill addresses the Supreme Court’s concerns, including secularism, by proposing a national framework, advocating a Rivers Protection Committee to manage over 400 rivers, supported by Rs 300 crore annually and Rs 50 crore in non-recurring funds from the Consolidated Fund of India, with penalties up to Rs 150 crore and one year’s imprisonment for violations.
These developments, combined with Matri Sadan’s activism and Dr. Rajendra Singh’s advocacy, have propelled the issue forward, highlighting the failure of existing laws to address the Ganga’s pollution, with 1.5 billion litres of untreated sewage and 500 million litres of industrial waste entering daily.
Legal arguments for river personhood emphasise its potential to empower rivers to seek judicial remedies, aligning with India’s environmental jurisprudence, such as ‘Subhash Kumar versus State of Bihar’ (1991), which recognised the right to a clean environment under Article 21.
International models, like New Zealand’s Whanganui River, where guardians represent the river without personal liability, offer practical templates that balance cultural significance with secular governance. Ecuador’s 2008 Constitution and Colombia’s 2016 ruling on the Atrato River further demonstrate that legal personhood can facilitate conservation by recognising nature’s right to exist and regenerate.
Dr. Singh’s article, Ganga Andolan: Tehri Dam Had a Significant Impact on Gangatva in Global Bihari, criticising the Tehri Dam’s impact on the Ganga’s flow, and his Tarun Bharat Sangh initiatives, like river parliaments, propose community-driven models to address jurisdictional and secular concerns, enabling decentralised yet coordinated management. Matri Sadan’s hunger strikes and legal victories, including the 2011 closure of Himalaya Stone Crusher, underscore the urgency of protecting the Ganga from mining and pollution, supporting personhood as a tool to hold polluters accountable without religious bias.
Counterarguments highlight significant legal, practical, and constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court’s stay emphasised the ambiguity of duties and liabilities, questioning who would be liable for flood damages or pollution in downstream states. The selective application of personhood to the Ganga and Yamuna risks unequal treatment of rivers, as implied by the Court’s jurisdictional concerns, potentially violating Article 14. The inter-state and transboundary nature of rivers, such as the Indus (affected by China’s damming) or the Ganga (impacted by the Farakka Barrage in Bangladesh), complicates enforcement.
Without a national authority, state-specific rulings risk inconsistency. The High Court’s religious framing, while culturally contextual, risks complicating enforcement across diverse communities, as policies prioritising sacredness could restrict universal access to river resources, conflicting with Article 21’s environmental mandate.
Practical implementation poses challenges: if guardians fail, should they be penalised or replaced, and how are violations defined? The absence of clear mechanisms for dispute resolution or compensation undermines the ruling’s efficacy. Additionally, Article 25 could be invoked if personhood policies restrict religious practices of non-Hindu communities, as suggested by the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of religious endorsements in the Indian Young Lawyers Association.
Efforts to challenge the Supreme Court’s stay include multiple legal avenues. A review petition under Article 137 could cite new evidence, such as the Ganga’s worsening pollution or the 2025 Haridwar case, to argue for reinstating personhood. An interlocutory application in the pending SLPs could propose a national commission to address jurisdictional and secular concerns. A fresh PIL under Article 32, asserting violations of Article 21, or interventions by environmental groups, could refine the framework by drawing on global models.
However, challenges persist due to the Supreme Court’s authority and the complexity. Other state rulings, like the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s 2020 recognition of Sukhna Lake as a living entity, suggest a trend toward nature’s rights, adopting a secular approach that contrasts with the Ganga ruling. ‘M.C. Mehta versus Union of India’ (1988-2017) and National Green Tribunal bans on mining demonstrate judicial support for environmental protection, yet a comprehensive, secular framework remains elusive.
The immediate provocation for revisiting river personhood in 2025 stems from the confluence of Matri Sadan’s legal activism, Satnam Singh Sandhu’s legislative initiative, and growing public and judicial awareness of India’s river crisis, with over 400 rivers facing threats from pollution and overexploitation.
Dr. Singh’s advocacy, including his 1991 Aravalli mining ban and community-based models, provides practical, secular solutions to operationalise personhood, while Matri Sadan’s 2025 victory highlights the judiciary’s role in curbing ecological harm. Sandhu’s bill, with its national committee, addresses constitutional concerns by proposing a neutral framework applicable to all rivers, mitigating the High Court’s religious bias. Sandhu, a noted educationist, Chancellor of Chandigarh University, and founder of the Indian Minorities Foundation and New India Development Foundation, introduced his private member’s bill to grant rivers rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The debate in 2025 balances innovative jurisprudence with India’s secular and federal structure, requiring a statutory mechanism to clarify guardians’ roles, limit liabilities, ensure inter-state cooperation, and uphold equality and secularism.
Until resolved, the legal status of Indian rivers as living human beings remains a poetic ideal, poised for judicial or legislative action to translate reverence into law.
*Senior journalist
