Introduction.
The necessity of preserving and protecting our natural environment has recently gained more attention. Giving trees and other natural objects legal individuality is one intriguing idea that has recently come to light.
A legal personality, also known as a juristic personality, is a non-human creature that the law considers capable of possessing the rights and obligations that are often only given to humans. The rights granted might range from a small number of legal rights that the granting body considers essential to the business’s operation to a wide range of fundamental rights that provide the entity with protection across the board.
The legal personality of trees refers to the acceptance of them as legal subjects with inherent standing and rights. This paradigm shift places an emphasis on the intrinsic value of nature while balancing the anthropocentric and ecocentric viewpoints.
Legal personality of environmental entities.
The academic paper “Should Trees Have Standing? Towards Legal Rights for Natural Objects “[1] by Christopher D. Stone is where the concept of an environmental entity having the status of a legal person first emerged. Justice William Douglas’ subsequent referral of the study in the 1972 US Supreme Court case Sierra Club v. Morton[2] also greatly contributed to the emergence of such an idea.
He was of the opinion that since inanimate objects like ships and corporate entities were already accepted as suitable adversaries for a variety of adjudicatory processes, the possibility of an environmental entity having a locus standi wasn’t impossible. He argued that there will be better support for ecological equilibrium and preservation if the environment is given a voice.
There exist various countries that have recognised and granted legal personality to various environmental entities, such as trees, water bodies, etc. India is one such country that has granted a juristic personality to rivers.
Juristic personality of environmental entities in the Indian context.
Through various judicial precedents and judgements, Indian courts have recognised environmental entities as legal persons, and have granted them certain rights and duties. However, there exist no major legislations to govern such personalities.
In the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India[3], the apex court ruled that shifting from the then-dominant anthropocentric approach to a more eco-centric one was necessary for the environment to receive fair justice.
The Supreme Court ruled in Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja [4] that non-human animals are entitled to the same protections under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution as people are. In an effort to save dolphins from harm, India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests designated them as “non-human persons” in 2013. According to the government, a study showed that dolphins are extremely sensitive and intelligent, and that dolphins “should be seen as ‘non-human persons’ and as such should have their own specific rights.”
The most significant judgement with regards to the juristic personality of environmental entities came out in the case of Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand [5]. In 2017, the court granted the rivers Gangotri and Yamuna a legal personality through this judicial judgement.
The same idea was further reiterated by the Uttarakhand High Court. The court was of the opinion that, “the Glaciers, including Gangotri & Yamunotri, rivers, streams, rivulets, lakes, air, meadows, dales, jungles, forests wetlands, grasslands, springs and waterfalls, are 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, in order to protect and conserve them.”[6]
The Madras High Court in 2022 declared ‘mother Earth’ to be a legal personality capable of holding all rights, duties and liabilities as that of a living person.[7]
Drawbacks of granting legal personality to environmental entities.
When an entity is recognised as a legal personality, it is granted certain rights and duties. Upon the infringement of such rights, these entities may sue, and on failure to perform their duties, the entity may be sued upon.
In the case where a non-human entity is granted a juristic personality, and thereby granted certain rights and duties, they are to be represented in legal matters, and have their rights protected through a representative, who would act as their guardian.
While the rights of a river may be protected to a certain extent, the question arises when the matter is with regards to the duties of the river.
A suit may be filed to prevent construction of a bridge over the river, to prevent the release of harmful substances or chemicals into the water, thereby protecting the river as well as its rights.
However, in a case where a river overflows and floods, thereby damaging property and causing casualties, there is no clarity as to who would be held responsible. There is apprehension among the people that the representative would be held liable for any damage caused by the environmental entity.
Further, there is no institution that has been set up to look into the appointment of guardians, and the representation of nature.
The setting up of a Nature’s Rights Commission to safeguard nature was brought up by the Uttarakhand high court in Lalit Miglani [8]. The creation of such a commission can serve as a springboard for developing the specifics of an institutional system. However, the creation and implementation of such a system should be based on community involvement and must take into account the ecological and cultural variety of the nation.
Conclusion.
Giving environmental entities legal personhood is a challenge to our fixed ideas of legal rights and duties. We may move towards a more comprehensive and sustainable approach to environmental protection by acknowledging environmental entities as legal entities with inherent rights. However, it may necessitate considerable practical and legal changes, though it offers a viable way to address the ecological problem we are currently facing. To minimize unintended repercussions and achieve a balanced routine that respects both human and environmental interests, importance must be given to the implementation of such an idea. The legal status of environmental entities acts as a catalyst for a paradigm change towards a more ecologically aware and sustainable future as cultures continue to wrestle with the complex relationship between humans and nature.
Refrences:
[1] Stone (1972), ‘Should Trees Have Standing? – Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects’, Southern California Law Review, 45, pp. 450-501.
[2] Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727 (1972)
[3] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267
[4] Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, 2014 (6) SCALE 468)
[5] Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No.126 of 2014
[6] Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (PIL) No.140 of 2015
[7] A. Periyakaruppan v. the Principal Secretary, W.P (MD) No. 18636 of 2013
[8] Supra 6
