Why nature deserves a seat at the table: A case study on nature’s personhood

In March 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court granted legal personhood to the Ganga and Yamuna rivers, along with their tributaries, marking a significant development in India’s recognition of nature’s rights. This decision came shortly after New Zealand’s Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Settlement Act) 2017, which recognised the Whanganui River as a legal entity. While New Zealand’s legal recognition was the result of decades of negotiations, culminating in statutory enactment for a single river, India’s approach was through judicial conferment, a more expedited process which lacked in-depth deliberation. In contrast to the approaches in India and New Zealand, which focus specifically on the rights of rivers, Ecuador and Bolivia have integrated nature’s rights into their constitutions, elevating environmental protection to a constitutional obligation for all of nature. This framework seeks to balance ecological integrity with human interests but faces significant enforcement challenges due to competing development priorities. Although the Supreme Court of India later overturned the Uttarakhand High Court’s ruling as ‘legally unworkable,’ the Indian discourse on the rights of nature can still draw valuable lessons from New Zealand’s Te Awa Tupua enactment and the constitutional recognition of nature’s rights in Ecuador and Bolivia. These examples highlight both the potential and the challenges of granting legal personhood to nature, offering important insights for shaping future policies in India. By synthesising these experiences, this casenote calls for a deeper societal connection to nature, urging a shift in perspective from conquerors to caretakers, and fostering a sustainable and just coexistence with the natural world.