ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the 2017 orders by the Uttarakhand High Court in India that declared the Ganga and Yamuna rivers, and nature in Uttarakhand state, as legal entities with the rights, duties and liabilities of a living person. The rulings responded to the deteriorated state of the Ganga and Yamuna rivers and the environment in general, drawing upon the rivers’ religious significance for Hindus and a broader environmentalist ethos. However, the rulings were stayed by the Supreme Court and remain suspended. The radical decision of giving personhood to rivers and nature was not asked for in any petitions, nor did it connect logically with the claims of these cases or seem particularly relevant for the environmental concerns of Uttarakhand, and they were made without any firm grounding in civil society activism or support from the state and its bureaucracy. The court orders, which were inspired by legal personhood cases in Aotearoa New Zealand, must be understood in the context of legal activism and public interest litigation in India. The chapter critically discusses issues of jurisdiction, the way guardianship for rivers and nature is set up, the grounding in Hindu values and the risks of the judgments conflicting with human rights.
