Will making him a “person” save India`s holiest river? In New Zealand, the local Māori Iwi, or Whanganui tribe, fought for 140 years for recognition of their river – New Zealand`s third largest – as their ancestors. The Yamuna is the main tributary of the Ganges, which officials say is contaminated with sewage and industrial pollution. In some places, the river stagnates to such an extent that it no longer supports life. The water in the Yamuna is chemically treated before being supplied to the nearly 19 million people of Delhi in the form of drinking water. In the same way, destructive activities that damage the river, including dams, pollution, diversion, industrial fishing and trawling, sand extraction, could not only be questioned, but stopped altogether. Why is it important that the interests of the river itself be promoted? I believe this is part of a much needed broader paradigm shift. At present, natural entities (be they rivers, mountains, or forests) are often seen as a set of tools that can be used for human benefit. By using these natural tools, we exploit them, and in the long run, this exploitation leads to catastrophic disasters for the planet, vulnerable people and other animals. Realistically, I`m not sure it`s possible for a judge to be impartial enough to separate himself from anthropocentrism, but nevertheless, the legal fiction of personality can help to consider the interests of natural entities in court. It marks a step from the simple contemplation of man as benevolent stewards to the consideration of natural beings as holders of rights of invocation. The judges cited the example of the Whanganui River, revered by indigenous Maori and declared to be alive with full legal rights by the New Zealand government last week. The decision, which has been welcomed by environmentalists, means that polluting or damaging rivers is legally tantamount to harming a person. “However, if the rivers are given legal personality, some `best placed` people will be able to represent the interests of the river.” “Many Indigenous communities recognize nature as a subject whose personality deserves protection and respect, rather than seeing it as a commodity or commodity over which property rights should be exercised,” she says.
Giving rights to nature means that the law can see “nature” as a legal entity, creating rights that can then be enforced. Legal rights focus on the idea of legal status (often described as the ability to sue and be sued), which allows “nature” to go to court to protect its rights. Legal personality also includes the right to conclude and perform contracts, as well as the capacity to own property. In early July, Bangladesh became the first country to grant all its rivers the same legal status as the people. Now, its rivers are treated as living beings in court. The landmark decision by Bangladesh`s Supreme Court aims to protect the world`s largest delta from further deterioration due to pollution, illegal dredging and human intrusion. “This will help protect the rivers because they now have all the constitutional and legal rights of the people, including the right to life,” said M.C. Pant, a lawyer for public interest litigation against the state for failing to act in eliminating encroachments on the banks of the Yamuna River.
“It is the constitutional duty of every citizen to protect our natural resources, including rivers,” said Rohilla, an expert in urban water management. As unprecedented as the decision to recognize the legal rights of a river may seem, the oldest images of the Ganges, drawn from the most remote corners of history and myth, suggest that the natural and divine qualities of this sacred body of water have always been inextricably linked. Ganga and Yamuna as goddesses of abundance and fertility owe their engraved forms to animistic guardian spirits and the ancient deities of fertility and abundance. The Ganges` vehicle, Makara, is a fabulous creature made from parts of the fish-eating Ganges crocodile, dolphin and yamuna of the local tortoise, perhaps suggesting that the early inhabitants of the Gangetic plain enjoyed these freshwater creatures as much as we do today. Perhaps the time has come for the rivers to reclaim their ancient divine rights. In April 2017, an Indian court declared the Ganges and Yamuna rivers to be living things. The Ganges is one of the largest and most polluted river systems in the world, with tons of raw sewage and industrial waste polluting the river. It meanders 2,500 kilometers (1,553 miles) through northern India, from the Himalayas to the Bay of Bengal. The Ganges, which is also highly valued by Indians for its healing powers. In an attempt to reduce pollution in both rivers, India`s Uttarakhand High Court ruled that the Ganges and Yamuna rivers (a major tributary of the Ganges) have the same rights as a legal entity. The original judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court stated that the Ganges and Yamuna were legal persons, but that their legal personality was a combination of three types of legal persons: legal persons, living persons and legal persons. As a result, rivers have been granted human rights.
In March 2017, India`s Supreme Court overturned the decision to recognize the Ganges and Yamuna as legal entities. This decision was taken after a petition from the Uttarakhand government that the legal status of the rivers was not legally tenable. The State argued that their legal status created uncertainty as to who the guardians were and who was responsible for the damage to the families of those who drowned in the two rivers. In a separate April 2017 ruling, India`s Supreme Court recognized glaciers, lakes and forests in the Himalayas as “legal entities” in the mountainous state to reduce the environment. A human right implies the possibility or promise of restitution, reparation and compensation for violations of such a right. What would this mean for a river? Could restitution mean the return of a river to its pre-injury state of health, such as the dismantling of dams that have radically changed their nature, which can no longer be recognized in their original form (including, for example, flowing only through tunnels, in so-called run-of-river hydroelectric projects)? “So they felt they had a jurisdictional issue, and secondly, because of the way the court built legal personality in this case, they were extremely concerned that they would be held liable as custodians of the river`s actions,” O`Donnell says. The statement generated a lot of publicity. But the government of the state of Uttarakhand, where the Ganges originated, argued that the decision was simply not feasible and could lead to complicated legal situations or even claims against rivers in the event of flooding or drowning. This argument reinforces the idea that legal personality is not an all-or-nothing concept. It can be used to the extent that it is useful to reflect the obligations and rights that apply to a company. For example, in many jurisdictions, companies have been granted legal personality because it reduces the risk of personal liability for those involved in setting up a business. But a company is unable to demand human rights such as the right to marry.
Legal personality has also been conferred on other entities such as non-profit organizations, religious groups and even a deity in India. [6] Despite the spread of legal personality, it has not been applied to nature. That is, until recently. Similarly, in 2014, New Zealand recognized Te Urewera National Park as a legal entity with rights, powers, duties and responsibilities as a “legal entity”. This was followed by the law passed in 2017, which gives the Whanganui River ecosystem the status of a legal entity. In 2009, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution calling for the 22nd anniversary of the United Nations General Assembly. == References ===== External links ===* Official website later that year, it adopted a resolution on harmony with nature (December 21). In 2018, wild rice rights were recognized. In January 2019, the Supreme Court in Dhaka, Bangladesh recognized the Turag River as a living being with legal rights and ruled that this would apply to all rivers in Bangladesh.
In some parts of the world, dams have actually been closed to allow the river to flow freely again, helping to restore their health or wild fish populations.