IAS/UPSC Coaching Institute  

13 Oct 2025 : Great Nicobar revives the issue of nature’s legal rights

 Editorial 2: ​​Great Nicobar revives the issue of nature’s legal rights

Context

There are examples in the legal world that offer guidance on the protection of territories and natural resources

 

Introduction

From an ecological standpoint, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands rank among the world’s most significant biodiversity hotspots, serving as a crucial carbon sink and climate regulator. However, the region’s development trajectory has largely been dictated by perspectives from mainland India, often disconnected from the unique ecological sensitivitiesof island ecosystems. The current concern revolves around the Government of India’s mega development plan for Great Nicobar Island, involving a power plant, township, transshipment port, and airport, which threatens nearly 13,000 hectares of untouched forest.

 

Essential Judicial Precedent: The Niyamgiri Hills Judgment (2013) and Its Relevance to Great Nicobar

  • Case & Context: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. vs Ministry of Environment & Forest and Ors. (2013) under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) stands as a key precedent on forest diversion and tribal consent.
    • The case arose from the Dongoria Kondh tribe’s opposition to bauxite mining in Odisha’s Niyamgiri Hills, a site sacred to their faith and vital to their ecosystem.
  • Court’s Action & Principle Established: The Court ordered a referendum among affected Gram Sabhas, all of which rejected the mining proposal.
    • It affirmed the Gram Sabha’s constitutional competence to decide on matters concerning community culture, religion, and natural resources, thereby establishing that tribal consent is a legal prerequisite for projects impacting forest land.
  • Relevance to Great Nicobar Project: The same principle applies to the proposed mega development project on Great Nicobar Island, involving large-scale forest diversion.
    • The critical question is whether the Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar was given the opportunity to certify the settlement of forest rights under the FRA before approval.
    • As per a report, the Council alleged that the Andaman and Nicobar Administration falsely claimed tribal rights were settled, when in fact they were not fully recognizedbefore the diversion of 13,000 hectares of pristine forest.
  • Legal Implication: The Niyamgiri judgment reinforces that no forest land can be diverted without free, prior, and informed consent of local tribal institutions, making it a crucial safeguard for Great Nicobar’s indigenous and ecological integrity.

Granting Rights to Nature in India: The Shift Toward Earth Jurisprudence

  • Context and Emerging Pattern: The situation in Great Nicobar Island reflects a recurring pattern of environmentally unsustainable development projects — similar to Tehri (North), Koel Karo (East), and Sardar Sarovar (West).
    • These projects exemplify planned ecological disasters, exposing the failure of conventional environmental laws to safeguard natural ecosystems.
  • Global Legal Response- The ‘Rights of Nature’ Approach:
    • To address these shortcomings, countries such as Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and New Zealand have adopted a framework known as “earth jurisprudence” or “rights of nature”.
    • This legal philosophy recognises natural entities — rivers, forests, and mountains  as rights holders, granting them legal personhood and protection independent of human interests.
  • Philosophical Foundation- Christopher Stone’s 1972 Thesis:
    • The concept draws from Christopher Stone’s seminal essay, “Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects” (1972).
    • His arguments:
      • Environmental damages are typically assessed only in terms of human impact, not harm to nature itself.
      • Relief and compensation go to affected humans, not to the damaged natural entity.
      • Recognising nature as a legal person, with its own rights and the ability to seek redress through guardians or trustees, would ensure direct environmental protection.
    • Implementation suggestion: Creation of a guardianship body to represent nature in legal proceedings, manage restoration, and collect funds for ecological preservation.
  • Indian Context-  Recognition of Nature’s Legal Personhood (2017):
    • A turning point came with the Uttarakhand High Court judgment in Mohd. Salim vs State of Uttarakhand and Others (2017).
    • The Court granted legal personhood to the Ganga and Yamuna rivers, along with the Gangotri and Yamunotri glaciers.
    • It conferred rights and obligations upon these natural entities, exercised through designated guardians acting on their behalf.
    • Although the Supreme Court later stayed this ruling, it established a foundational precedent for recognising guardianship and stewardship models for nature in India.
  • Significance for Great Nicobar and Beyond:
    • The rights of nature approach could provide a powerful legal safeguard for ecologically sensitive regions like Great Nicobar, where development threatens forests and biodiversity.
    • Recognising natural ecosystems as legal persons would compel accountability, ensuring their intrinsic value and right to exist are protected — not merely as human resources, but as living entities with legal standing.

The Case in Colombia as Guidance for India’s Legal Personhood Debate

  • Expanding the Forest Rights Framework: Extending the Forest Rights Act (FRA) to include the concept of legal personhood for natural entities could be a progressive step in India’s environmental jurisprudence.
    • However, this would necessitate clarity on key legal aspects, such as:
      • The specific rights nature would hold.
      • The responsibilities and liabilities of those designated as guardians.
      • The scope of representation — i.e., who can legitimately speak and act on behalf of nature.
  • Need for Normative Clarity:
    • Before such a framework is adopted, India must examine foundational normative questions, including:
      • How should a rights-bearing natural entity be defined?
      • What types of rights (existence, regeneration, protection) should be recognised?
      • Who bears the legal and ethical responsibility to uphold these rights?
    • A comprehensive legal model should balance ecological protection, cultural integrity, and community participation.
  • Learning from Colombia’s Atrato River Case (2016): The Constitutional Court of Colombia recognised the Atrato River as a legal person, introducing the concept of bio-cultural rights.
    • Bio-cultural rights affirm the right of ethnic and indigenous communities to autonomously protect and manage their natural territories, integrating their cultural and ecological relationship with nature.
    • The Court mandated the creation of a Commission of Guardians, comprising:
      • Representatives from the affected indigenous communities, and
      • Government-appointed members,
        to ensure joint stewardship and accountability for the river’s protection.
  • Relevance for India: The Atrato River model provides a practical and inclusive framework for India to emulate and combining legal personhood with community-led guardianship.
    • Applying this to regions like Great Nicobar would empower local tribal councils and forest communitiesto act as guardians of ecosystems, ensuring both environmental preservation and cultural continuity.

 

Conclusion

The Great Nicobar project reignites the debate on aligning development with ecological justice. Judicial precedents like Niyamgiri (2013) and global models such as Colombia’s Atrato River case (2016) underscore the need to recognise nature’s intrinsic rights. Extending legal personhood to ecosystems, with community-led guardianship, can ensure that India’s progress does not come at the irreversible cost of its natural heritage.