Judgement Briefs

Environmental Law

Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

2017 SCC OnLine Utt 367; WPPIL No. 126/2014; read with SLP (C) No. 16879/2017

Citation
2017 SCC OnLine Utt 367; WPPIL No. 126/2014; read with SLP (C) No. 16879/2017
Court
High Court of Uttarakhand; Supreme Court of India (stay)
Date
20 Mar 2017; stay 7 Jul 2017
Bench
Rajiv Sharma & Alok Singh, JJ.; Supreme Court Bench (stay order)

Facts

  • The petition concerned the failure of the State authorities to adequately protect and administer the rivers Ganga and Yamuna and their surrounding ecosystems.
  • It also raised issues relating to the implementation of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000, particularly the constitution of the Ganga Management Board.
  • The Court noted that the Ganga and Yamuna were not merely sources of water.
  • They supported the life, health, livelihood and spiritual practices of a very large section of the population.
  • Despite their importance, the rivers were being affected by pollution, encroachment, illegal extraction and administrative neglect.
  • The Court considered whether ordinary governmental control had proved insufficient to secure their long-term protection.
  • It therefore examined whether the rivers could be recognised as legal or juristic persons, similar to institutions, corporations and Hindu idols recognised by law.

Issue

  • Whether the rivers Ganga and Yamuna could be recognised as legal persons possessing enforceable legal rights.
  • Whether State officials could be made responsible for representing and protecting the rivers.
  • Whether such recognition could strengthen environmental protection and prevent continuing degradation.

Rule

  • A juristic person is an entity which the law treats as having legal personality even though it is not a natural human being.
  • Such an entity may possess rights, hold property and be represented in legal proceedings through human guardians.
  • Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution require the State and citizens to protect and improve the natural environment.
  • The State acts as trustee of important natural resources and must preserve them for public use and future generations.
  • The doctrine of parens patriae permits the State to protect entities that cannot protect their own interests.

Application

  • The Court observed that the Ganga and Yamuna had immense ecological, cultural and economic importance.
  • Millions of people depended upon them for:
  • drinking water;
  • agriculture;
  • sanitation;
  • livelihood;
  • religious and cultural practices.
  • The rivers were nevertheless incapable of defending themselves against pollution, diversion, encroachment and unlawful development.
  • The Court drew an analogy with Hindu idols, which have long been recognised as juristic persons and are represented by human managers.
  • If an artificial institution or religious idol could possess legal personality, the Court reasoned that a river supporting the life of an entire community could also be recognised by law.
  • Legal personality would allow environmental injury to be understood as an injury to the river itself, rather than only as harm suffered by individual humans.
  • The Court considered this useful because conventional proceedings often depend upon a person establishing personal injury or sufficient interest.
  • By treating the rivers as rights-bearing entities, proceedings could be initiated directly for:
  • preventing pollution;
  • removing encroachments;
  • recovering compensation;
  • restraining unlawful construction;
  • restoring ecological damage.
  • Since a river cannot speak or litigate, the Court appointed designated State officials to act on its behalf.
  • The Director of the Namami Gange Programme, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand were placed in the position of persons responsible for protecting the rivers.
  • They were expected to act as the human face of the rivers and defend their interests in legal and administrative matters.
  • The Court therefore used legal personality as an environmental-protection technique rather than as a symbolic declaration alone.

Conclusion

  • The Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna, along with their tributaries and related natural features, to be legal and living entities having the status of juristic persons.
  • The rivers were recognised as possessing corresponding legal rights, duties and liabilities.
  • The designated State officials were directed to act in loco parentis and represent the rivers.
  • The judgment became an important Indian example of the rights-of-nature approach.
  • However, on 7 July 2017, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the High Court judgment.
  • Therefore, the declaration must be studied as an influential environmental-ethics judgment, but not as a presently operative nationwide rule that Indian rivers conclusively possess legal personality.
  • Use this case for: recognition of nature as a potential rights-bearing entity, subject to the Supreme Court’s stay.