INTRODUCTION
India’s judiciary has long demonstrated a progressive approach to environmental jurisprudence, yet one vital aspect remains unexplored — granting legal rights to individual trees. While forests enjoy statutory protection and rivers and animals have been recognised as legal persons by Indian courts, trees outside forests continue to be viewed as property rather than rights-bearing entities. This blog advocates for recognising trees — not merely as ecological assets — but as legal subjects with independent rights, particularly within the rapidly urbanising Indian context.
THE LEGAL STATUS QUO: TREES AS COMMODITIES
Under existing Indian statutes, trees are primarily treated as objects of regulation, valuable for their timber or ecological contribution:
The Indian Forest Act[1] Governs protected and reserved forests, but is silent on individual trees located in urban or private spaces. Several states have enacted Tree Preservation Acts (e.g., Delhi.[2]), focusing on administrative control rather than intrinsic rights. The Environment law[3] Provides for ecosystem-level conservation, yet it lacks a mechanism to address the rights of specific flora. The Biological Diversity Act[4] Protects species with medicinal or endemic significance, not individual urban or cultural trees. Thus, the legal framework objectifies trees as resources to be managed, not entities to be respected.
RIVERS AND ANIMALS AS JURISTIC PERSONS: INDIAN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS
Indian courts have already extended legal personhood to non-human entities:
In Mohd. In Salim v State of Uttarakhand, the High Court declared that the Ganga and Yamuna rivers are legal persons with the State acting as loco parentis[5].
In the case of Karnail Singh v State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that all animals are legal entities, capable of rights and duties.[6].
These decisions invoke the principle of juristic personhood, historically extended to deities and corporations. The rationale? Protection of voiceless entities through legal guardianship.
So, why not trees?
GLOBAL MODELS: COMPARATIVE JURISPRUDENCE ON RIGHTS OF NATURE
India is not alone in reimagining legal protections for nature. Around the world, several jurisdictions have recognised rights for individual natural entities:
New Zealand’s Te Urewera forest and Whanganui River were granted legal personhood under agreements with the Māori, recognising their spiritual and ecological value[7].
Ecuador’s Constitution (2008) enshrines “rights of nature”, enabling legal standing for ecosystems in court.[8].
In Future Generations v Ministry of Environment, the Colombian Supreme Court recognised the Amazon rainforest as a legal subject.[9].
These examples demonstrate that recognising natural entities as rights-holders is not only philosophically sound but also legally feasible.
THE URBAN TREE CRISIS IN INDIA: AN UNPROTECTED CATEGORY
Urbanisation has caused unprecedented damage to India’s tree cover. Major infrastructure projects have led to mass felling:
The Aarey forest controversy saw the proposed removal of over 2,000 trees for a metro car shed, sparking widespread protests and litigation[10] In Mumbai.
In Delhi, tree-felling for redevelopment projects prompted legal action, leading the Delhi High Court to stress the public trust doctrine.[11].
In both cases, trees were defended by concerned citizens, not in their own right, but as a byproduct of environmental activism. Legal personhood would allow trees to be represented through court-appointed guardians, enhancing their protection and agency.
CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS: ARTICLES 21, 48A, AND 51A(G)
There is ample constitutional basis for such recognition:
Article 21 guarantees the right to life, which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to include a healthy and balanced environment[12].
Article 48A of the Constitution directs the state to protect and improve the environment.
Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on citizens to safeguard the natural environment, including flora and fauna. These provisions, read harmoniously, offer a constitutional mandate for treating trees as more than ecological accessories.
JUDICIAL INNOVATION: COURTS RECOGNISING NATURE’S RIGHTS
Trees as Legal Persons: Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India (2020) :
In a landmark decision, the Uttarakhand High Court in Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India[13] Declared “the entire animal kingdom, including avian and aquatic species, possesses a distinct legal persona. Though trees were not the primary focus, the ruling paved the way for extending legal personhood to other natural entities”.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India :
This PIL series has been monumental in shaping forest jurisprudence. The Supreme Court interpreted “forests” under the Forest Conservation Act expansively, bringing even private forests under protection.[14]. However, individual trees not part of “notified forests” remain legally vulnerable.
A LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR TREE PERSONHOOD
A forward-looking statutory or judicial model could include:
Tree Registry: Cataloguing heritage, rare, or ecologically significant trees with a legal identity number.
Guardianship: NGOs, citizen groups, or municipal officers acting as legal guardians (analogous to court-appointed guardians for minors).
Legal Standing: Allowing trees to sue or be defended in their own right via next friends.
Enhanced Penalties: Civil and criminal sanctions for felling, damaging, or poisoning legally recognised trees.
This would ensure that trees are not merely “protected,” but empowered as rights-bearing entities.
THE LEGAL GAP: TREES OUTSIDE FORESTS
Lack of Individual Tree Protection Laws :
There is no central legislation that accords protection to trees outside forests, urban parks, or protected areas. The Urban Tree Protection Acts in states like Delhi, Maharashtra, and Karnataka do regulate tree felling, but these are often weak in enforcement and limited in geographical scope.
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) :
EIAs under the Environment (Protection) Act[15]Rarely account for the ecological value of individual mature trees, especially in urban infrastructure projects. The emphasis is often on statistical “tree count,” not ecological significance.
TOWARDS RIGHTS-BASED RECOGNITION OF TREES
International Inspiration: Rights of Nature Movement :
Countries like Ecuador and New Zealand have led the way in recognising the Rights of Nature, granting legal personality to rivers, forests, and mountains. In New Zealand, the Whanganui River has the same legal rights as a person. This reflects a paradigmatic shift from anthropocentric to ecocentric legal systems.
Expanding Legal Personhood :
Indian courts have already recognised temples, deities, corporations, and rivers (e.g., Ganga and Yamuna) as legal persons. Extending this to individual trees, especially heritage or ecologically critical specimens, is both legally feasible and morally urgent.
PROPOSED LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INDIVIDUAL TREES
- Heritage Tree Legislation :
Inspired by the Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act[16], 1975, a national-level policy could be adopted to recognise “Heritage Trees” based on age, size, rarity, or ecological function. These trees should receive non-fellable status except in dire emergencies.
- Legal Guardianship :
Following the Uttarakhand model, every district or panchayat could be mandated to appoint legal guardians for significant trees, who can represent their interests in case of encroachment or developmental threats.
- Tree Impact Assessments (TIAs) :
Introduce TIAs analogous to EIAs, mandating independent ecological evaluation before the removal of any tree, regardless of whether it stands on public or private land.
CHALLENGES AND CRITICISMS
Legal Ambiguity: Legal personhood may lead to procedural complications unless backed by specific legislation.
Private Property Rights: Protection of trees on private lands might conflict with individual landowners’ rights under Article 300A.
Enforcement: Assigning rights is easier than enforcing them. Without robust mechanisms, symbolic recognition may remain ineffective.
CONCLUSION: TOWARDS A RESPECT-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Trees are the lungs of cities, the protectors of biodiversity, and the silent sentinels of climate stability. By recognising their legal personhood, Indian law can transition from a utility-based conservation model to a respect-based ecological jurisprudence. In an age of climate breakdown and urban alienation, granting legal rights to trees is not radical — it is responsible. India has the constitutional vision, judicial creativity, and environmental urgency to lead this movement.
Author(s) Name: Souvik Das (South Calcutta Law College)
References:
[1] The Indian Forest Act 1927
[2] Delhi Tree Preservation Act 1994
[3] The Environment (Protection) Act 1986
[4] The Biological Diversity Act 2002
[5] Mohd. Salim v State of Uttarakhand (2017) SCC OnLine Utt 367
[6] Karnail Singh v State of Haryana (2019) SCC OnLine P&H 704
[7] Te Urewera Act 2014
[8] Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador 2008, art 71
[9] Future Generations v Ministry of Environment [2018] Corte Suprema de Justicia
[10] Mansi Choksi, ‘Aarey Protests: What is at Stake for Mumbai?’ The Hindu (Mumbai, 5 October 2019)
[11] Sukhdev Vihar Residents Welfare Assn. v Union of India (2018) SCC OnLine Del 11264
[12] Subhash Kumar v State of Bihar AIR 1991 SC 420
[13] Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India (2020) SCC OnLine Utt 276
[14] T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267
[15] The Environment (Protection) Act 1986
[16] Maharashtra (Urban Areas) Protection and Preservation of Trees Act 1975
