In an unprecedented order, the Uttarakhand High Court yesterday declared the rivers Ganga and Yamuna as living entities, with the rights of legal persons..A Bench of Justices Rajiv Sharma and Alok Singh also designated the Advocate General of the state and two others as “persons in loco parentis” to protect, conserve and preserve the rivers and their tributaries..By way of background, a petition was filed in 2014 challenging illegal construction and mining on the river bed of the Ganga, on land belonging to the Irrigation Department. The petitioner contended that this situation was created due to the fact that a property dispute between the states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand was yet to be resolved, ever since the formation of the latter in 2000..A little after the reconstruction of the states, the Central government passed a notification directing that the U.P. Irrigation Department was permitted to manage Hydel Projects associated with the Ganga canal. This notification was assailed before the High Court, which had quashed the same. However, this decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which in 2013, directed the Centre to expeditiously resolve the property dispute between the two states..The petition also sought a direction to the Centre to constitute a Ganga Management Board for the protection of the river, as per Section 80 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. The state governments were given the responsibility of nominating members to this Board. However, the Board is yet to see the light of day..On December 5 of last year, the Bench directed the Centre to constitute the same within three months. It had also banned mining in the river bed of the Ganga..When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, it was revealed that the two state governments could not see eye to eye over the constitution of the Board. In fact, the rest of the court’s directions were not complied with either. Miffed with the state of affairs, the Bench held,.“The Court shows its serious displeasure about the manner in which the State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand have acted in this matter. It is a sign of non-governance. We need not remind the State Governments that they are bound to obey the orders passed by the Central Government failing which the consequences may ensue under Article 365 of the Constitution of India.”.It was at this juncture that the court decided that “extraordinary measures” had to be taken in order to preserve both rivers..Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments wherein Hindi idols were held to be juristic persons, the court sought to apply the same logic to the rivers, which are,.“…worshipped by Hindus. These rivers are very sacred and revered. The Hindus have a deep spiritual connection with Rivers Ganges & Yamuna. According to Hindu beliefs, a dip in River Ganga can wash away all the sins.”.Hence, the court held,.“There is utmost expediency to give legal status as a living person/legal entity to Rivers Ganga and Yamuna r/w Articles 48-A and 51A (g) of the Constitution of India.”.So what exactly does this mean?.The court itself has said that a juristic person is one with all the rights and duties of a natural person, except that these rights can only be enforced through a designated person..Which is why the court has designated the Advocate General of the state, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Director of Namami Gange (the Water Ministry’s project to clean the Ganga) to be in charge of the protection of the rivers..Moreover, the AG will also have the responsibility of representing the rivers in all legal matters related to their protection..In passing this order, the High Court was perhaps inspired by a New Zealand court, which had recently conferred the Whanganui River with the same rights as a legal person..Read the order:
In an unprecedented order, the Uttarakhand High Court yesterday declared the rivers Ganga and Yamuna as living entities, with the rights of legal persons..A Bench of Justices Rajiv Sharma and Alok Singh also designated the Advocate General of the state and two others as “persons in loco parentis” to protect, conserve and preserve the rivers and their tributaries..By way of background, a petition was filed in 2014 challenging illegal construction and mining on the river bed of the Ganga, on land belonging to the Irrigation Department. The petitioner contended that this situation was created due to the fact that a property dispute between the states of Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand was yet to be resolved, ever since the formation of the latter in 2000..A little after the reconstruction of the states, the Central government passed a notification directing that the U.P. Irrigation Department was permitted to manage Hydel Projects associated with the Ganga canal. This notification was assailed before the High Court, which had quashed the same. However, this decision was challenged in the Supreme Court, which in 2013, directed the Centre to expeditiously resolve the property dispute between the two states..The petition also sought a direction to the Centre to constitute a Ganga Management Board for the protection of the river, as per Section 80 of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000. The state governments were given the responsibility of nominating members to this Board. However, the Board is yet to see the light of day..On December 5 of last year, the Bench directed the Centre to constitute the same within three months. It had also banned mining in the river bed of the Ganga..When the matter came up for hearing yesterday, it was revealed that the two state governments could not see eye to eye over the constitution of the Board. In fact, the rest of the court’s directions were not complied with either. Miffed with the state of affairs, the Bench held,.“The Court shows its serious displeasure about the manner in which the State of U.P. and State of Uttarakhand have acted in this matter. It is a sign of non-governance. We need not remind the State Governments that they are bound to obey the orders passed by the Central Government failing which the consequences may ensue under Article 365 of the Constitution of India.”.It was at this juncture that the court decided that “extraordinary measures” had to be taken in order to preserve both rivers..Referring to previous Supreme Court judgments wherein Hindi idols were held to be juristic persons, the court sought to apply the same logic to the rivers, which are,.“…worshipped by Hindus. These rivers are very sacred and revered. The Hindus have a deep spiritual connection with Rivers Ganges & Yamuna. According to Hindu beliefs, a dip in River Ganga can wash away all the sins.”.Hence, the court held,.“There is utmost expediency to give legal status as a living person/legal entity to Rivers Ganga and Yamuna r/w Articles 48-A and 51A (g) of the Constitution of India.”.So what exactly does this mean?.The court itself has said that a juristic person is one with all the rights and duties of a natural person, except that these rights can only be enforced through a designated person..Which is why the court has designated the Advocate General of the state, the Chief Secretary of Uttarakhand and the Director of Namami Gange (the Water Ministry’s project to clean the Ganga) to be in charge of the protection of the rivers..Moreover, the AG will also have the responsibility of representing the rivers in all legal matters related to their protection..In passing this order, the High Court was perhaps inspired by a New Zealand court, which had recently conferred the Whanganui River with the same rights as a legal person..Read the order:
