As in the other parts of the world, there are petitions in India seeking the recognition of the rights of nature. For instance, in 2014 the High Court of Uttarakhand heard a petition calling for recognizing the legal personality of the Yamuna and Ganges rivers. The court observed that recognizing the legal personhood of the Yamuna and Ganges rivers would “protect the recognition and faith of society”.
By Salam Rajesh
In current global discussions on the environment and nature-related concerns, it often comes to the fore the question whether rivers, amongst other aspects of nature, have the same rights as humans.
This interesting query finds reflection in the numerous cases of litigation on dam removals globally and the universal call to let rivers flow free to sustain river ecology, river dependent animal and insect life. The sustainable livelihoods for millions of people are dependent either directly or indirectly on the resources of rivers for their living and sustenance.
Dam removal from the entire stretch of the Klamath River in northern California is seen as historic, ensuring the return of the Chinook salmon to its natural habitat after almost a century and freeing the river from all forms of man-made obstacles. The Klamath River success story is just one of several successful stories of regaining rivers’ rights to flow freely in their natural state without any hindrance.
A news item of the Associated Press in July earlier this year described the ruling of a court in Ecuador that activists called ‘historic’, where the court ruled that pollution had violated the rights of a river that runs through the country’s capital Quito.
The ruling is based on an article of Ecuador’s constitution that recognizes the rights of natural features like the Machángara River. Darío Iza, whose group Kitu Kara filed the complaint on behalf of the river, remarked that this was historic because the river runs right through Quito, and because of its influence, people live very close to it.
The court ruled that the Ecuadorian Government had to come up with a plan to clean up the Machángara River of its filth. The city of 2.6 million people dumps all sorts of effluents and contaminants into the river which originates in the upland of the Andes.
The Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, which supported the campaign, said the Machángara River carries tons of garbage that comes down from gullies and the hillsides, lowering the oxygen contained in the river to an average level of 2 percent only, which makes it difficult for aquatic life to thrive.
Equally interesting was the landmark ruling of the Peruvian Court of Nauta in March earlier this year which recognized the rights of the Marañón River and the Indigenous communities as its guardians. The indigenous Kukama women of Peru had fought to gain the rights of the Marañón River, and they succeeded.
Dams, pollution, physical alterations, stone quarrying and sand mining are some forms of anthropogenic influences that threaten the lifespan and ecological integrity of rivers across the globe. On this footnote, the critical question of should rivers have the same rights as humans is now hot on the menu in international negotiations.
The International Rivers’ Rights of Rivers report (2020) stressed that the ‘Rights of Nature’ is the idea that nature possesses fundamental rights, just as humans do. The report is based on a global survey of the rapidly developing Rights of Nature jurisprudence pertaining to rivers. The Rights of Nature movement has ancient roots, arising from Indigenous traditions that have always treated humans as part of nature, rather than distinct from it, the report explained.
As in the other parts of the world, there are petitions in India seeking the recognition of the rights of nature. For instance, in 2014 the High Court of Uttarakhand heard a petition calling for recognizing the legal personality of the Yamuna and Ganges rivers. The court observed that recognizing the legal personhood of the Yamuna and Ganges rivers would “protect the recognition and faith of society”.
That same year, the Uttarakhand High Court heard another petition seeking the protection of the Himalayan ecosystem of glaciers, streams and forests. In the process, the court observed that “rivers and lakes have intrinsic right not to be polluted. Polluting and damaging the rivers, forests, lakes, water bodies, air and glaciers will be legally equivalent to harming, hurting and causing injury to [a] person”.
The court further emphasized that ‘Rivers, forests, lakes, water bodies, air, glaciers and springs have a right to exist, persist, maintain, sustain and regenerate their own vital ecology system. The rivers are not just water bodies. They are scientifically and biologically living’.
Quite interesting for South Asia, in February of 2019, the High Court of Bangladesh recognized the legal personhood of the Turag River, as well as the legal personhood of all rivers in Bangladesh. The country’s highest non-appellate court issued the landmark decision saying that all rivers in Bangladesh are hitherto recognized to have legal personhood.
A more interesting case story comes from the African nation of Uganda. Section 4 of the country’s National Environment Act, 2019, includes a clause on the rights of nature wherein the law says that ‘Nature has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution’, where the legal right focuses on the idea of legal standing which enables “Nature to go to court to protect its rights”.
These various deliberations and decisions on the rights of nature nationally and globally reflect harshly on the nature of abuse of rivers and other traditional waters in India’s Manipur State. The worst-case scenario is typically that of the Nambul River which flows through the heart of Imphal city and carries a large quantum of pollution load that is deposited by the river directly into the freshwater Loktak Lake – a Ramsar site of international importance.
The abstract neglect and abuse of the rights of nature is again reflected in the manner in which two very significant water bodies – Lamphelpat and Porompat wetlands in the Imphal peri-urban landscape – had been reduced to a condition wherein these water bodies have entirely lost their original character and ecological status, and thus bereft of their ecosystem services to humankind and to other living beings.
The deliberation on the rights of nature closely reflect the deep concerns of the United Nations in its global campaign for ecosystem restoration to address many issues of which climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, limiting global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius, and revitalizing ecosystems to achieve sustainable living of humans and in reviving the near natural status of all ecosystems across the seven continents figure on the top list of priorities to regain planet Earth’s health and vitality.