Q1.
Why do you think some people want to give nature (like rivers and forests) legal rights, just like humans?
Answer
Because a right is only worth what its enforcement is worth — and a river cannot go to court. If the law treats a river as a legal person, then a guardian can be appointed to act in its name, and harming the river becomes a wrong done to the river, not merely a loss suffered by whoever happened to be nearby.
The chapter gives four facts to build the answer on:
- In New Zealand, the Whanganui River is legally treated as a living being.
- Costa Rica protects Nature’s rights in its Constitution.
- In 2017, the Uttarakhand High Court declared the rivers Ganga and Yamuna as legal entities, giving them the rights of a living person, and appointed legal guardians responsible for protecting and conserving the rivers.
- That decision was suspended and ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court of India, which called it ‘legally unsustainable’.
Why the idea attracts people: under ordinary law you can normally go to court only if you have been harmed. A polluted river harms fish, forests and future generations — none of whom can file a case. Making the river itself a rights-holder closes that gap. The chapter also connects it to a right you already know: the right to life includes the right to a clean environment, and Fundamental Duty 7 asks every citizen to protect and improve the environment and have compassion towards animals.
Did you know? The chapter points out that this is not a purely modern thought in India. The ancient concept of ṛiṇa or ‘debt’ counted Nature among those to whom we owe a debt by the very fact of being born — and the duty of repaying that debt follows from it.
Keep the disagreement honest. This is a genuinely contested question. The Uttarakhand High Court thought rivers should hold rights; the Supreme Court disagreed and set the order aside. The chapter reports both and does not tell you who was right — and neither should your answer.