The Madras High Court has given Mother Nature the status of a living person by declaring ‘parens patriae jurisdiction’. This will preserve all the respective rights, duties, and liabilities of nature, just like a living person. The Madras High Court has given nature the status of a ‘living person’ while underlining the importance of natural resources, including trees and plants.
The Madurai bench of the High Court, in its order in 2022 on a petition filed by a former tahsildar-level officer, has made the observation giving special importance to the conservation of nature. Disciplinary action was taken against the officer for allotting a part of the classified government land in the name of some people. He had filed an appeal in the high court to cancel the same.
During the hearing on a petition filed by the officer named A Periyakarupan, who is a resident of Theni, the court said that indiscriminate destruction of nature would create many complications in the ecosystem and endanger the existence of flora and fauna. Periyakarupan was given forced retirement. Justice S. Sreemathi also referred to an earlier judgment of the Nainital High Court in which the court had declared the glacier, including the Gangotri and the Yamunotri rivers, as legal entities to preserve it according to parens patriae jurisdiction.
The court further said, “The past generations have handed over ‘Mother Earth’ to us in its pristine glory and we are morally bound to hand over the same in a similar fashion to the next generation. ‘Mother Nature’ is accorded the rights akin to fundamental rights, legal rights, constitutional rights for its survival, safety, sustenance, and resurgence in order to maintain its status and also to promote its health and well-being.”
The judge modified the punishment of compulsory retirement to stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect. The consequential monetary benefits shall be conferred on the petitioner. The court said that this punishment is imposed for the act done against ‘Mother Nature’.
Factual Matrix
It was stated in the present matter that, the petitioner had served in the Revenue Department for the past 35 years and lastly served as Distillery Officer in the cadre of Deputy Collector in the Rajashree Sugars and Chemicals Private Limited. The petitioner attained superannuation in 2006 and was not allowed to retire but was placed under suspension because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings.
Further, in 2009, the Government decided to impose the punishment of compulsory retirement for the proven charges and later in 2012, by a Government Order, the petitioner was eligible for 2/3rd pension and the 1/3rd of the eligible pension and the retirement gratuity was reduced as penalty.
Petitioner contended that the Government did not provide any opportunity before imposing the punishment.
Hence, aggrieved with the above, petitions were filed.
Analysis and Decision
High Court opined that, since the co-delinquent’s disciplinary proceedings were quashed, the petitioner was entitled to the same benefit. The Bench added that the delinquents deserved to be treated equally in the matter of punishment in departmental proceedings for the acts of omissions and commissions.
The Bench while noting that the land in question was classified as “forest land”, observed that the Mother Nature ought to be preserved.
Indiscriminate destruction or change is leading to several complications in ecosystem, ultimately is endangering the very existence of the animals, flora and fauna, forests, rivers, lakes, water bodies, mountains, glaciers, air and of course human. Strangely the destruction is carried on by few humans. Any such act ought to be checked at all levels.
Invoking the “parens patriae jurisdiction”, Court declared the “Mother Nature” as a “Living Being” having legal entity/legal person/juristic person/moral person/artificial person having the status of a legal person, with all corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person, in order to preserve and conserve them.
Adding to the above, Court stated that, the State Government and the Central Government are directed to protect the “Mother Nature” and take appropriate steps to protect Mother Nature in all possible ways.
High Court held that, since the petitioner had issued patta to the Megamalai forest land, the petitioner ought to be punished. Lastly, the Court concluded by stating that the punishment of compulsory retirement ought to be modified as a stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect and consequential monetary benefits shall be conferred on the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion, petitions were allowed. [A. Periyakaruppan v. Revenue Department, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 2077, decided on 19-4-2022]
Other Countries With Similar Judgments
It is not the first time that natural ecosystems have been accorded legal status. Slowly the concept is being accepted into the mainstream as countries have started to offer legal protection to nature in some shape or form.
Ecuador
The South American country became the first country in the world in 2008 to ratify a constitutional amendment to include nature’s rights. Article 71 of the redrafted constitution states that nature not only has the right to exist but also to have its “maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structures, functions, and evolutionary processes” respected.
According to the Matador Network, the nation’s new constitutional amendment was put to test in 2011 when Richard Frederick Wheeler and Eleanor Geer Huddle filed a lawsuit against the Provincial Government of Loja, a city in southern Ecuador. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Vilcabamba River, which had suffered from debris buildup from a road-widening project. The court ruled in favor of the river, marking the first time nature’s rights were legally upheld.
New Zealand
Time and again, New Zealand and its native Maori have recognised natural ecosystems as living beings. In 2017, New Zealand granted the Whanganui River the legal rights of a human being. The Maori had already been fighting for the rights of the river, also known as Te Awa Tupua. The 2017 Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act describes it as “an indivisible and living whole…comprising all its physical and metaphysical elements.” This includes the river’s waters, the riverbed and its flora, subsoil, and the airspace overhead. In 2014, Te Urewera National Park on the east coast of the North Island earned its status as a living entity for being “ancient and enduring, a fortress of nature, alive with history,” and “a place of spiritual value, with its own mana and mauri”. In 2018, Mount Taranaki on the North Island’s west coast became yet another rights-of-nature success story.
Columbia
Citing the precedent set in New Zealand, the Constitutional Court of Columbia granted legal rights to the Atrato River, near the Panama border. The nation’s Supreme Court recognised the legal rights of the Amazon’s ecosystems, claiming that the Colombian Amazon was entitled to “protection, conservation, maintenance, and restoration.”
Australia, the United States and Bangladesh are also some other countries that have acknowledged the legal rights to various natural ecosystems. Bangladesh in fact went a step ahead and declared all of the rivers in the country to be alive and entitled to legal rights.
Only when there is a right, can one seek remedy. The Latin maxim “ubi jus ibi remedium” is a principle that means that the law provides one remedy when there is a violation of a right. However, the question of whether the environment can have the status of personhood to seek remedy when its rights are violated is a scope of discussion. When environmental resources are destroyed for human benefit, the remedy is often from an anthropocentric angle. For example, if an oil leak happens due to the negligence of a ship in the ocean, the remedy will largely take into account the impact on human life in the region. Victims seeking compensation and clearing the split oil will be two of the most significant burdens placed on the polluter. But, the question remains – does the environment have a locus standi in court?
In a judgment dated 19th April 2022, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court invoked the principle of “parens patriae jurisdiction” and recognized Mother Nature as a person with rights, duties, and liabilities to protect, preserve and conserve the environment (Madras High Court Grants Mother Nature ‘Living Being’ Status With Rights and Duties, 2022).
Jurisprudentially, with the ever-growing environmental challenges, recognizing the rights of nature has been a subject of debate across the world. This has resulted in the development of ‘ecocide’ over the years which is soon expected to be introduced into the Roman Statute as a fifth international crime after the genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. Such is the relevance of the rights of nature. With climate change being a critical issue for this century, there is a need for understanding what the rights of nature are and the importance of recognizing the same in mitigating environmental problems.
‘Rights of Nature’ movement
It is important to fundamentally change the relationship between humans and the environment for the larger good of the planet which is precisely what the “Rights of Nature” movement does. According to this doctrine, just like how a human has the right to approach a court of law when his/her rights are violated, an ecosystem is entitled to the status of legal personhood with rights which can protect itself by defending in a court of law when harm is caused (Challe, 2021). In several countries, nature has been recognized as a person. An example is a mountain named Mount Taranaki in New Zealand was bestowed with legal personhood status in 2017 (Satish & Satish, 2021). This implies that if the mountain is exploited or damaged for any reason, it has the right to approach a court of law and defend itself. Thus, the rights of nature provide room for nature to exist, flourish, rejuvenate and evolve without human interference. The primary objective of bestowing nature with such rights is to provide the natural environment with the highest level of protection in order to ensure the ecosystem is not disrupted.
But, how exactly does nature go to court and represent itself? When ‘nature’ goes to court, it is represented by a guardian who acts and argues the case on behalf of the environment. This is the principle of parens patriae which the Madras High Court discussed.
What did the Madurai Bench have to say?
The case decided by the Madurai Bench was a common order for two writ petitions filed by the petitioner, A.Periyakaruppan against the respondents the Principal Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu and the Additional Chief Secretary and Commissioner of Revenue Administration seeking for payment of pension which was cut by the respondents as a punishment for the petitioner’s act of giving land deed (pattas) for forest land (A.Periyakaruppan V. Principal Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu & Ors., 2022).
In discussing the case, the court identified nature has the right to be represented by the State by the doctrine of “parens patriae jurisdiction” and directed the State and Central governments to undertake initiatives to protect the environment. In the present matter, the court observed that the petitioner, a government official, had failed in duty to take the necessary steps to protect the Government lands. According to the acts done against nature, the court held that sanction must be imposed on the petitioner whereby “compulsory retirement ought to be modified as stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect and consequential monetary benefits shall be conferred on the petitioner.” (A.Periyakaruppan V. Principal Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu & Ors., 2022)
This judgment has the potential to pave the way for more judges and judgments to align towards protecting and conserving Mother Nature. This judicial activism of the courts shows the role of the judiciary in hastening the process of environmental conservation. When more issues are addressed from the perspective of the environment, it becomes easier to bring forth accountability and proactivism towards climate change mitigation for after all mitigation measures are collective efforts of humankind.
Can Our Natural Ecosystem Have Rights?
While the jury is out there, most people agree that in order for humans to survive it is important that we conserve nature. Many countries including India have granted legal rights to nature in the past. In 2008 Ecuador was the first country in the world to assign and implement the Rights of Pachamama (Mother Earth) to nature. In 2017 the Uttarakhand High Court granted living rights to glaciers in a case involving the rivers Ganga and Yamuna the same ‘parens patriae jurisdiction’. Incidentally, the Madras High Court has spoken of the Centre’s positive move in green conservation, but the opposite has happened recently. Delhi has once again been named the most polluted city in the world. The list also includes cities like Dhaka in Bangladesh, Enzamena in Chad, Dushanbe in Tajikistan and Muscat in Oman. But the capital city of the country has beaten everyone in terms of pollution. Not only that. The list of 106 cities, not just Delhi, shows that 11 of the 15 most polluted cities in Central and South Asia are in India.
Miles and miles to go attain a climate-contained World and the judgements from Courts of law around the world are hopeful to attain a better EARTH where Humans flourish in prosperity and happiness now and forever.
References:
(This article is prepared by Miss Anjumol Paradiyil Stephen as part of her internship program at Centre for Environmental Efficiency in May 2022 and published as part of the knowledge sharing program)
