Madras (India) High Court Case: personhood for the Thamirabarani river

Summary

On 23 July 2026, the Madras High Court of India recognized the personhood of the Tamirabarani river on the basis that “She is a deity”, and established that no person has a right to pollute the river, even in the name of religion. The bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice B Pugalendhi made it clear that personhood was being granted not because the waterbody was a river, but because the river was treated as a deity “recognized for Her own intrinsic value.”

Jurisprudential Framing
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a deity is also an individual and can even be treated as an unit of assessment (Official Trustee of W.B for the Trust of Chitra Dassi v. CIT (1974) 3 Scc 616). River Tamirabarani is admittedly worshipped as a deity by the Hindus. Therefore, it partakes the character of a person. We are conscious that the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court in Mohd.Salim v. State of Uttarakhand conferring personhood right on Ganga river basin has been stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.16879 of 2017 on 07.07.2017. We, therefore, make it clear that we recognise the personhood of Tamirabarani not because it is a river but because She is a deity. No one has a right to pollute her. That will not only be a breach of the statutory provisions found in various environmental laws and a breach of the fundamental rights of fellow citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also the rights of the River Herself. She is hereby recognised for Her own intrinsic value.” (p. 10)

The ruling emphasizes that conferral of the juristic personality on the river is only for the limited purpose of recognising that the river has a right not to be polluted. No other right or duty or liability springs out of such recognition. (p. 12)

Deity as a juristic personality
The ruling referenced a 2020 court case that argued the birth place of a Hindu deity should be conferred with juristic personality. The court rejected that submission, but noted the following observations: “The conferral of legal personality subserves specific requirements that justify its recognition. The conferral of juristic personality does not automatically grant an ensemble of legal rights. The contours of juristic personality i.e. the rights and liabilities that attach upon the object conferred with juristic personality, must be determined keeping in mind the specific reasons for which such legal personality was conferred. The limits or boundaries of the rights ascribed to the new legal person must be guided by the reasons for conferring legal personality. The parameters of judicial innovation are set by the purpose for which the Judge innovates” (Rama Janma Boomi case (2020) 1 SCC 1)

By conferring personhood on river Tamirabarani, we are in noway ignoring the pitfalls highlighted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Conferment of juristic personality in this case is only for a limited purpose ie., right not to be polluted. The conferral of juristic personality is a legal innovation applied by courts in situations where the existing law of the day has certain shortcomings or such conferral increases the convenience of adjudication. It is a fact that Tamirabarani has been heavily polluted. (p. 11)

The court also references several international developments of rights of rivers recongitions, but states that it consciously refrains from discussing this aspect further, as “conferment of personhood is not on nature or river per se. Juristic personality has been conferred only on account of the fact that the river in question is revered as a deity.” (p.14)

Climate Change
Another reason for conferring personhood on the river Tamirabarani is climate change, which the court describes as the most formidable challenge facing humanity, and is a direct fallout of environmental degradation. The court states that what law can not deter, shift in perception can. “Laws alone are not sufficient to deal with the problem. Even strict implementation would not achieve the object. Human nature must change. And that is possible more by moral interventions…We, therefore, feel that jurisprudence must increasingly align itself with spiritual ecology. Especially in a country like India.” (p. 14)