Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand & Others

The Ruling

A two-judge bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand held that the Ganga and Yamuna rivers were 'juristic/legal persons' with all 'corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a living person,' and appointed the Chief Secretary and Advocate General of Uttarakhand as in loco parentis custodians. Three months later, the Supreme Court of India stayed the order on the Uttarakhand government's appeal, accepting the argument that personhood at this scale required legislative — not judicial — authorization, and would expose the state to unmanageable liability for floods and pollution.

The Personhood Argument Not Made

The arc is the doctrine. Personhood here is not an extraction tool (Citizens United) but a protection tool — and the state's own apparatus reached for the lever and then withdrew its hand the moment liability followed. The Uttarakhand court reasoned by direct analogy to Hindu juristic-person law for temple deities: if an idol can hold property and sue, a river that sustains 400 million people surely can. The Supreme Court did not disagree on the metaphysics. It disagreed on who pays when the river floods.

The Execution Gap Created

The Ganga receives an estimated 2,900 million litres of sewage daily; treatment capacity covers roughly 1,200 million litres. Within 90 days of the High Court's grant, the state that was made guardian became the appellant against guardianship. Personhood that arrives without a budget and exits at the first sign of liability is a costume, not a status.

Primary sources & research

• Read the primary source →

Related cases

• Flint Water Crisis (Mays v. Snyder et al.) (2015)
• Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
• Te Awa Tupua (Whanganui River Claims Settlement) Act 2017 (2017)
• Sierra Club v. Morton (1972)

Part of The Personhood Prism, the companion to The Execution Gap by Thomas William Hornig. See all personhood cases →