Ms. Karishma Jain, Assistant Professor at Global Group of Institutes – School of Legal Studies, Amritsar, explores the evolving relationship between law and the natural world in her article, “Can Nature Sue? The Emerging Jurisprudence of Rights of Nature.” The article examines the growing recognition of nature as a rights-bearing entity and how this emerging legal approach could reshape environmental protection and jurisprudence.
Can a River Be a Plaintiff?
Imagine a river standing inside a courtroom. Not merely as the subject of an environmental dispute or as government property, and also not through a human petitioner claiming that pollution has violated a human right, but as the plaintiff itself.
Can a river actually sue?
It sounds like a wild idea. But modern legal systems have started questioning the idea that only humans and companies can hold legal rights.
A legal expert named Christopher D. Stone, in 1972 wrote a famous paper called Should Trees Have Standing? He simply asked a question “Why should nature be left out of court just because a tree or a river can’t physically walk inside and speak?”
This concept has grown into the “Rights of Nature” movement which has changed everything about traditional environmental law. Usually, we protect a forest or a river not because its rights have been violated but because polluting it hurts human health, human jobs, or human property. The modern notion is that the nature deserves legal safety because it has its own value and not just because the human beings need this.
Thus, the real question is not just that whether a river can sue a person. It is whether our legal system is ready to admit that a crime can be committed against a river..
From Objects of Law to Subjects of Law
Legal personality is ultimately a creation of law. A corporation, for instance, cannot think, speak or physically appear in court, yet the law recognises it as a legal person capable of possessing rights and obligations. This raises a fundamental jurisprudential question: if law can construct legal personality for artificial entities, why should it be impossible to construct legal personality for natural entities?
Stone’s argument was that inability to speak for oneself need not prevent legal recognition. Legal systems already use representatives, guardians and fiduciaries to protect the interests of entities that cannot personally participate in litigation.
The Rights of Nature approach therefore represents a conceptual progression:
Nature as property → Nature as protected resource → Nature as legal subject
This distinction is important. Under conventional environmental law, ecological damage is often translated into injury to human beings, public interests or regulatory standards. If nature itself is recognised as a rights-holder, however, ecological injury may constitute an independent legal wrong.
A polluted river would not necessarily have to wait for a human being to prove illness or economic loss before its injury becomes legally significant.
Ecuador: When Nature Entered the Constitution
Ecuador provides perhaps the clearest constitutional example of the Rights of Nature approach.
Its 2008 Constitution expressly recognises nature as a subject of constitutional rights. Article 10 provides that nature is the subject of rights recognised for it by the Constitution.Article 71 recognises nature’s right to respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes. Article 72 separately recognises nature’s right to restoration.
The significance of Ecuador lies in its transformation of nature from an object of environmental regulation into a constitutional rights-holder.
Under a conventional environmental-rights model: “Pollution has harmed me; therefore, my rights have been violated.”
Under a Rights of Nature model: “The ecosystem itself has been harmed; therefore, the rights of nature have been violated.”
This distinction is particularly important where ecological damage cannot immediately be translated into measurable human injury.
Ecuador therefore raises a fundamental question for environmental law:
Should nature be protected only when humans can demonstrate that they have been harmed, or should ecological harm itself be independently cognisable in law?
The Ecuadorian constitutional framework answers the latter.
New Zealand: When a River Became a Legal Person
New Zealand provides perhaps the most striking legislative example.
The Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 expressly declares Te Awa Tupua—the Whanganui River—to be a legal person, possessing the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of a legal person.
Importantly, the legislation does not stop at declaring personhood. Section 14(2) provides a mechanism through which the river’s rights and duties are exercised by Te Pou Tupua on behalf of and in the name of Te Awa Tupua.The Risk of Romanticising Nature
The legislation also reflects the distinctive relationship between the Whanganui Iwi and the river, describing Te Awa Tupua as an indivisible and living whole extending from the mountains to the sea and incorporating its physical and metaphysical elements.[iii]
The New Zealand experience therefore demonstrates an essential principle:
Recognition without representation is incomplete.
If a river is a legal person, someone must be legally empowered to speak for it, protect its interests and seek remedies when it is harmed.
India: The Ganga and Yamuna Experiment
India offers a particularly interesting judicial experiment.
In Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna, together with their tributaries and certain associated natural water bodies, to be juristic/legal persons or living entities possessing the status of a legal person. The Court invoked, among other provisions, Articles 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution and its parens patriae jurisdiction.
The decision was significant because it attempted to use the existing concept of juristic personality as a mechanism for environmental protection.
However, it is crucial not to overstate its legal status.
The State of Uttarakhand challenged the decision before the Supreme Court, which subsequently stayed the operation of the High Court’s order.Consequently, Mohd. Salim should be understood as a significant judicial experiment rather than settled Indian law recognising rivers as legal persons.
The case nevertheless remains important because it demonstrates the willingness of an Indian constitutional court to reconsider the conventional legal status of natural entities.
Lalit Miglani: Extending the Experiment
The same year, the Uttarakhand High Court went further in Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, discussing the legal status and protection of natural entities including glaciers, rivers and other ecological features.
The judgment demonstrates the potential breadth of the personhood approach.
But it also exposes a fundamental difficulty:
If a river can be a legal person, can a glacier? A forest? A wetland? An entire ecosystem?
And if so, who determines their legal interests?
Who Speaks for Nature?
This is perhaps the most difficult question confronting Rights of Nature.
A river cannot instruct an advocate. A forest cannot sign a vakalatnama. A mountain cannot tell a court what remedy it seeks.
Thus, any system recognising rights of nature requires some form of representation:
Nature → Guardian/Representative → Court
But this immediately raises another question:
Whose understanding of nature’s interests should prevail?
A river may simultaneously be important to farmers, fishermen, industries, local communities and the State. A hydroelectric project may produce economic benefits while damaging an ecosystem. A forest may support livelihoods while also requiring protection from commercial exploitation.
Who decides what is in the “best interests” of the river or forest?
The paradox is unavoidable:
Giving nature legal rights does not eliminate human interpretation; it changes the framework within which humans interpret nature’s interests.
The Whanganui model addresses this through statutory representation, while Ecuador allows persons, communities, peoples and nations to invoke the rights of nature.
Representation is therefore not a procedural afterthought. It is central to whether Rights of Nature can function effectively.
Rights of Nature and the Anthropocentric Model
The movement becomes clearer when contrasted with anthropocentric environmental law.
The conventional model can broadly be represented as:
Environmental harm → Human harm → Legal protection
The ecocentric model instead asks:
Environmental harm → Ecological injury → Legal protection
India’s environmental jurisprudence has already moved beyond a purely anthropocentric framework. The Supreme Court has recognised the relationship between environmental quality and Article 21 and has developed principles such as sustainable development, precaution and public trust.
The public trust doctrine, in particular, treats important natural resources as resources that the State holds in trust for public benefit.
Conceptually:
Public Trust Model:
State → Trustee → Public → Natural Resources
Rights of Nature Model:
Nature → Rights-holder → Humans/State as duty-bearers and representatives
The two models need not be mutually exclusive. Rights of Nature may instead represent a further development of the ecocentric direction already visible in environmental jurisprudence.
Is Legal Personhood Really Necessary?
A simple but important objection remains:
Will declaring a river a legal person actually make it cleaner?
Not necessarily.
Legal personality by itself does not guarantee restoration. A river may possess legal rights and remain polluted. A forest may be legally protected and continue to face destruction.
Therefore:
Legal personhood ≠ environmental protection
The real test is institutional effectiveness.
A meaningful Rights of Nature framework must answer at least five questions:
1. Who can enforce nature’s rights?
2. Who represents the natural entity?
3. What constitutes injury to nature?
4. What remedies are available?
5. How should ecological rights be balanced against legitimate human interests?
Stone’s original argument remains relevant: recognition of rights is meaningful only when the legal system provides mechanisms through which those rights can actually be asserted and remedies obtained.
The challenge is therefore to move from symbolic recognition to institutional enforceability.
Does India Need Rights of Nature?
India already possesses a substantial constitutional and judicial framework for environmental protection. Article 21 has been interpreted to include environmental dimensions of the right to life, while Articles 48A and 51A(g) reflect constitutional commitments towards environmental protection.
Indian courts have also developed the principles of sustainable development, precaution and public trust.
Should India therefore simply adopt the Ecuadorian or New Zealand models?
Probably not.
India’s federal structure, population density, developmental requirements and complex inter-State environmental and water-governance arrangements make mechanical transplantation inappropriate.
But India can learn from these comparative experiences.
Rather than simply declaring every river or forest a legal person, India could develop an Indian model of ecological rights, combining:
Constitutional environmental rights + Public Trust Doctrine + Ecocentric jurisprudence + Scientific expertise + Community participation + Institutional representation + Effective remedies
Such an approach would allow India to strengthen its existing environmental jurisprudence without merely copying foreign models.
Beyond Rivers: Forests, Animals and Ecosystems
Once rivers can theoretically possess rights, another question follows:
Why stop at rivers?
Could forests possess rights?
Could glaciers?
Could wetlands?
Could entire ecosystems?
Ecuador demonstrates how expansive the concept can become, with constitutional rights of nature forming the basis for environmental litigation involving ecosystems and natural entities.
India, meanwhile, has developed a separate but relevant body of animal-welfare jurisprudence. In Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, the Supreme Court emphasised statutory protections for animals and the constitutional duty under Article 51A(g) to show compassion towards living creatures.
Animal welfare and Rights of Nature are not identical doctrines. The former focuses on the protection and treatment of animals; the latter asks whether nature or natural entities can themselves possess rights or legally cognisable interests.
Nevertheless, both developments invite a broader jurisprudential question:
Who—or what—can be a rights-holder?
The Risk of Romanticising Nature
Rights of Nature should not become merely a symbolic celebration of rivers, forests and mountains.
Environmental governance involves genuine conflicts between ecological preservation, livelihoods, development, poverty alleviation and cultural practices.
A serious legal framework must therefore address:
representation, accountability, balancing and remedies.
The purpose should not be to create a legal order in which every human activity is automatically subordinated to an abstract conception of nature.
Instead, ecological integrity should become an independent and legally relevant consideration in decision-making.
Rights of Nature should not mean the disappearance of human interests. It should mean that human interests are no longer presumed to be the only interests worthy of legal consideration.
Towards an Indian Model of Ecological Rights
The comparative experience suggests that India need not choose between conventional environmental regulation and Rights of Nature.
A more promising approach would be to develop an intermediate and distinctly Indian model.
Ecologically critical ecosystems could receive enhanced statutory protection. Designated ecological guardians could be given clearly defined responsibilities. Public authorities, local communities and appropriate institutions could receive standing to initiate proceedings for ecological injury. Scientific assessment could help determine ecological harm, while remedies could focus on restoration rather than merely compensating human victims.
Most importantly, local communities should have meaningful participation in determining the interests and protection strategies of ecosystems with which they have longstanding relationships.
The ultimate objective should therefore not be to ask:
“Should every river become a legal person?”
The more important question is:
“How can law ensure that ecological injury is recognised, represented and effectively remedied even when no individual human being can demonstrate a conventional legal injury?”
That may be the more significant question for the future of Indian environmental law.
The Law Is Learning to Listen
So, can nature sue?
The answer depends upon what we mean by “sue.”
Nature cannot walk into a courtroom, instruct counsel or narrate its own suffering. But law has never required every legal person to possess these capacities. What law requires is a framework through which interests can be recognised, represented and enforced.
The more important question is therefore not whether a river can speak.
It is: Whether the law is willing to listen.
Ecuador demonstrates the possibility of constitutional recognition. New Zealand demonstrates how statutory legal personality can be accompanied by institutional representation. India demonstrates both the attraction of judicial experimentation and the difficulties of converting such experimentation into a stable legal doctrine.
The Rights of Nature movement is therefore more than a debate about whether rivers, forests or mountains should be called “persons.”
It challenges a deeper assumption embedded in environmental law—that nature matters legally only when human beings can demonstrate that they have been harmed.
Perhaps its most transformative proposition is that nature may have interests independent of human convenience—and that those interests may deserve a place in the courtroom.
The future of environmental law may consequently depend not merely on how effectively humans protect nature, but on whether law is prepared to recognise nature as a participant in the legal conversation itself.
Want the deeper dive? Grab the reference book.
