Madras High Court Declares Mother Nature As A Living Being Having All Rights Duties and Liabilities Of A Living Person

The Madurai bench of Justice S. Srimathy also observed that nature shall have fundamental rights/ legal rights and constitutional rights for its survival, safety and sustenance, and resurgence in order to maintain its status and also to promote its health and wellbeing. The court also directed the State Government and the Central Government to take appropriate steps to protect the mother earth in all possible ways.

"The past generations have handed over the 'Mother Earth' to us in its pristine glory and we are morally bound to hand over the same Mother Earth to the next generation. It is right time to declare / confer juristic status to the "Mother Nature". Therefore This Court by invoking "parens patriae jurisdiction", (parent of the nation jurisdiction) is hereby declaring the "Mother Nature" as a "Living Being" having legal entity / legal person / juristic person / juridical 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."

The court made the above observations in a petition filed by a former Taluk Tahsildar to quash the Government Order imposing compulsory retirement and a penalty of reduction of 1/3^rd pension and other retirement benefits for colluding with other officers and granting Patta in forest lands to private individuals.

Background

The petitioner served in the Revenue Department for past 35 years and served as Distillery Officer in the cadre of Deputy Collector in the Rajashree Sugars and Chemicals Private Limited, Varadaraj Nagar, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni District. After attaining the age of superannuation, he was not permitted to retire and was placed under suspension citing the pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him.

Through GO dated 06.04.2009, the Government punished him by imposing compulsory retirement, and by GO dated 17.08.2012, the Government ordered that the petitioner shall be eligible for only 2/3^rd of the pension and DCRG. The 1/3rd of the eligible pension and the retirement gratuity were reduced as a penalty.

The petitioner stated that the punishment was imposed on the petitioner for carrying out the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai, dated 24.07.1996 directing the petitioner to grant patta to an extent of 2873.03 hectares in Plot No. 36 i.e, S.No.280 part of Megamalai Village under Section 11 A of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The petitioner further contended that though such a harsh punishment is imposed on the petitioner, the Director of Survey and Settlement, Chennai, who is the Head of the Department, treated the land in question as Ryoti, and the Assistant Settlement Officer, Madurai has been left scot-free.

He also submitted that by order of the Settlement Officer, Thanjavur, and as per the directions of the District Collector, Madurai, the Patta granted was cancelled and necessary entries were made in the Village accounts. Thus, there was no monetary loss. The petitioner, therefore, submitted that the punishment imposed on him was harsh and prayed for quashing the same.

The respondents on the other hand contended that the petitioner, a Taluk Tahsildar, being the custodian of Government lands, should not have acted to implement the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer as it is not according to law and should not have allotted Government lands to private persons. The respondents also submitted that other officials involved in granting Patta also faced disciplinary proceedings. But some of the proceedings were quashed by the High Court, and some of the proceedings were upheld by the High Court. It was further submitted that the petitioner could not claim to treat on par with them since in each case there is some difference.

The court opined that though the punishment of co-delinquent were quashed or dropped and the entries were also modified and pattas cancelled, since the land in question was classified as "Forest Land" necessary intervention was needed. The court therefore, modified the order of compulsory retirement as stoppage of increment for six months without cumulative effect.