Madras High Court Recognizes Tamirabarani River As Juristic Person, Says It Can't Be Polluted In 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 by persons of the Hindu religion. The court thus observed that any pollution in the river would not just be against the environmental laws but also against the river's fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution.

“River Tamirabarani is admittedly worshipped as a deity by the Hindus. Therefore, it partakes the character of a person…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,” the court said.

However, the court has permitted immersion of ashes in the river, considering the sentimental and emotional attachment that Indians have to the waters of rivers and oceans and the importance of performing the rituals. The permission was granted on the condition that the ashes are carried in an unfired earthen pot, which could dissolve in the river immediately. The court made it clear that ashes cannot be thrown along with pots.

The court was dealing with a writ petition filed by Sivanupandian challenging the notice issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer (WRO) with respect to an encroachment proceeding. The petitioner had also sought directions to the authorities not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of Anandha Vilas Mandapam in Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District.

The petitioner was issued an eviction order under Section 6 of the Land Encroachment Act, asking him to vacate the mandapam. He filed a writ questioning the same, which was disposed of by the court, giving him liberty to appeal against the order as per the Act. Following the order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, Tirunelveli. While the appeal was pending, he was issued a notice by the Assistant Executive Engineer, which was challenged in the present plea.

While the court noted that the writ petition was not maintainable during the pendency of the appeal, the court noted the submissions made by the authorities regarding the devotees coming to the Tamirabarani river in large numbers to perform obsequies.

In the previous hearing, the court underlined that no person had a right to pollute waterbodies in the guise of performing religious rituals for the departed. The court had held that though believers had the right to do something which was spiritually beneficial to them, such right should not violate the rights of others in society. The court highlighted that the freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution was subject to public health.

However, since the issue concerned the beliefs and sentiments of Hindus, the court was not inclined to pass any orders without hearing the stakeholders. The court had thus invited suggestions from concerned organisations and the general public. Some of the lawyers and representatives of the Hindu Munnani raised objections and argued that they had a fundamental right to freedom of religion under Article 25 of the Constitution.

The court, however, noted that by regulating the performance of rituals on the banks of the river, it was not interfering with the fundamental rights. The court added that believers could do whatever was spiritually beneficial to them without adversely affecting the ecology. The court also highlighted that as per Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, people had a duty to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, etc.

The court also remarked that it was necessary to grant personhood to the river, considering climate change and environmental degradation. The court added that though laws existed, those alone were not sufficient to deal with the problem and a change in human nature was a must. The court added that shifting the perception could help bring in a change, especially in a country like India.

“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. One instance readily comes to mind. Turtles that come to the western coast for laying eggs were mercilessly hunted. A well known religious preacher compared the turtles to daughters coming to their maternal homes for delivery. Thus, the message was driven home. What law could not deter, shift in perception did. We, therefore, feel that jurisprudence must increasingly align itself with spiritual ecology. Especially in a country like India,” the court said.

The court thus banned the dumping of clothes and other articles in the river and directed the District Administration to take immediate steps to prevent pollution in the river. The court also said that awareness campaigns can be carried out and those polluting the river could be penalised. The court also asked the District Administration to involve members of the society to ensure that the river is kept pollution-free and paying honorarium to the members. The court also directed the local police to provide assistance whenever necessary.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Ramasamy S

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. B. Saravanan, Additional Advocate General assisted by M. Kannan Govt Advocate, Mr. V. R. Shanmuganathan

Case Title: Sivanupandian v The District Collector and Others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 353

Case No: WP(MD) No. 18560 of 2026