A river became a deity and a person between two hearings: Tamirabarani and the turn to spiritual ecology

On July 23, 2026, the Madras High Court in Sivanupandian v. District Collector did something interesting. It recognised the personhood of the Tamirabarani River, as it is worshipped as a deity in the Hindu faith. The Court accordingly held that no one had a right to pollute the River.

Such pollution, the Court said, would not only breach environmental statutes and the fundamental rights of citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution, but would also violate the rights of the River herself, recognised for her intrinsic value.

The Court clarified that juristic personality was being conferred only for a limited purpose: the River’s right not to be polluted. The significance of the decision lies not merely in the recognition of legal personality, but in the route adopted by the Court. It used personhood to perform an expressive function. The law was invoked not only to prohibit an act, but also to change the perception and moral description of that act.

The petitioner before the High Court was aggrieved by an eviction order passed under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, 1905, directing him to vacate the Anandavilas Mandapam in Tirunelveli District. The technical challenge and the petitioner’s individual claim are not especially relevant for present purposes. The Court itself noted that the writ petition might not be maintainable.

But the Court did not give the matter a quietus merely by sustaining the eviction order. The proceedings assumed a wider environmental dimension when the Court was informed that thousands of devotees ordinarily visited the bathing ghats of the Tamirabarani River. On certain occasions, devotees gathered in large numbers to pay homage to their deceased ancestors. The associated rituals involved the discarding of used and unused garments, towels, clothes, slippers and other articles connected with the deceased. The issue was particularly serious because the Tamirabarani is a perennial river catering to the drinking-water needs of crores of people.

In its first order dated July 9, 2026, the Court noted that no one had a right to pollute a water body, even in the name of religion. It referred to Section 36 of the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, which prohibits pollution of water bodies, and Section 24 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, which prohibits the introduction of polluting matter into streams.

The scale of the problem was evident from a booklet placed before the Court. It recorded that between May 7 and 28, 2026, approximately 86 to 90 tonnes of clothes had been collected from the River, apart from holy ash, slippers, plastic waste, glass bottles, burnt bricks, sanitary waste and other material.

Since the proposed directions had the potential to regulate religious practices, the Court considered it appropriate to hear all stakeholders before passing final orders. The District Collector was, therefore, directed to make a public announcement, while religious bodies, activists and other interested persons were given liberty to intervene and make submissions. It was after hearing the stakeholders that the Court passed its second order on July 23, 2026.

Although the first order had already identified the statutory violations, the Court was conscious that those resisting regulation took shelter behind Hindu faith and religion. It, therefore, sought to approach the issue from a different perspective.

The Court conceptualised a deity as that which is reverentially worshipped in accordance with the tenets of religion. It referred to the religious and cultural significance of the Tamirabarani River, including references to her in the Valmiki Ramayana, the Mahabharata and Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsam. The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the River is considered sacred and worshipped by crores of Hindus. Since Indian law recognises a deity as a juristic person, the Court held that the Tamirabarani partook of the character of a person.

It was, however, careful about the basis and extent of that recognition. The personhood was confined to one right: the right not to be polluted.

Notably, in Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, the Uttarakhand High Court observed that Hindus have a deep belief in the Rivers Ganga and Yamuna. It proceeded to declare the rivers as legal persons. The Director, Namami Gange, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Advocate General of Uttarakhand were declared persons in loco parentis, constituting the “human face” responsible for protecting and preserving the rivers. The judgment was assailed before the Supreme Court, which, by an interim order dated July 7, 2017, stayed its operation.

In the present case, the Court was not using law merely to prohibit an act. It was attempting to alter the perception and moral description of that act. By framing pollution as the desecration of a deity, the Court translated an environmental problem into terms that may command cultural and religious acceptance.

India regularly faces the issue of environmental degradation not because the governing laws are insufficient, but because enforcement is difficult, while social practices remain unchanged and are sometimes harmful to nature. In a society where rivers possess cultural and religious significance, perception may sometimes achieve what the strict command of law has failed to secure. It was in this context that the Court observed that jurisprudence must increasingly align itself with “spiritual ecology”, especially in a country such as India.

The Court recognised that the performance of rituals is an integral facet of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution. It also recognised the sentimental and emotional attachment of Indians towards rivers and other water bodies and, consequently, permitted the immersion of ashes in the Tamirabarani. The ashes were, however, required to be carried in unfired earthen pots capable of dissolving in the water.

Further, the Court directed the district administration to take immediate steps to prevent pollution of the River through the dumping of clothes and other articles in the name of performing rituals for the dead. Sustained awareness campaigns were to be carried out and people were to be told that polluting the River would be treated as an act of contempt of court.

The local body was directed to pass resolutions providing for the levy of fines. The district administration was also required to involve members of civil society in enforcing the mandate to keep the River pollution-free, while the police were to assist those engaged in preventing pollution. The Court treated its directions as a continuing mandamus.

Under Indian law, a deity ordinarily acts through a shebait or, in an appropriate case, a next friend. The Tamirabarani River has not been assigned any guardian, representative or next friend who may act on her behalf. It may, therefore, be difficult to determine who can assess an injury to the River, initiate proceedings in her name or represent her interests before a court.

Some critics may point out that the Court has not constituted a separate management body or worked out every institutional detail concerning the enforcement of the River’s personhood. However, since the district administration and local bodies are expressly required to implement the Court’s directions, the responsibility for protecting the River ultimately rests with them. They must take appropriate steps to safeguard the River and implement the Court’s directions in their true spirit.

It may also be claimed by some that faith-based personhood differentiates between rivers according to their religious significance. However, the judgment does not create any hierarchy between natural entities. Its purpose is much narrower and more practical: to use faith as a social tool for changing public perception and strengthening environmental compliance. Seen in that light, the recognition of the Tamirabarani’s personhood is a step in the right direction and may serve as the beginning of a broader approach if this model proves successful in securing meaningful protection for the River.

Natural entities such as particular trees, rocks or hills may not face pollution on the same scale and local communities that revere them may themselves act as their custodians. The Tamirabarani presented a materially different situation: lakhs of devotees visit the River and the Court had before it clear evidence of widespread and recurring pollution. It was this demonstrable environmental harm and the need to alter societal behaviour that prompted the Court to recognise the River’s personhood. The judgment, therefore, responds to a wrong rather than laying down a general rule that every object of worship ought to receive such legal status.

The judgment is laudable for its attempt to drive social change through judicial intervention. Between its first and second orders, the Court moved from strict environmental law to legal personality, not because law lacked sufficient command, but because the command of law had not proved to be an adequate social force to change the behaviour of the people.

The judgment is a compelling example of a unique solution to an issue that travels beyond the rigours of law and enters the fields of religion, society and public behaviour. It marks the beginning of an experiment in using perception and culture to protect the environment. Where the existing laws have not been able to adequately tackle problems such as those arising in the present case, this change in social perception may prove useful in ensuring a cleaner and better environment for the future.

Only time will tell whether this method proves effective in ensuring that the Tamirabarani becomes cleaner, healthier and capable of continuing its ecological life.

S Subramaniam and Ankur Singhal are advocates practicing before the Supreme Court of India.