Yamuna's petition

 

In the second week of July, Delhi Chief Minister stated that experts had concluded that an ominous increase in the water levels of the Yamuna was improbable and therefore flooding of Delhi was not expected. Yamuna had other plans. Soon the river crossed the danger mark and breached her bank in many places.

Delhiites started fretting and fuming. They started cursing the river, unmindful of her uninterrupted blessings to Delhi in the form of supply of water and nutrient-enrichment of the capital’s soil. Yamuna realised that neither the government(s) nor the citizens would come to her rescue and therefore she had to approach the courts of law to get relief from people’s anger. The waters of the Yamuna entered the Supreme Court confident that the Court being the sentinel on the qui vive would protect the interests of all. In her desperation for immediate succour from people’s wrath and governments’ insouciance, Yamuna overlooked the judicial protocol that required her to go to the High Court first.

The Supreme Court was aghast that the Yamuna waters had entered it and that the Court was also subject to nature’s fury. The Court dismissed Yamuna’s petition in limine and asked her to maintain judicial discipline and approach the High Court first. So, the holy Yamuna who was willing to give way to Lord Krishna soon after His birth despite heavy downpour but was unable to contain herself now, filed her petition in the Delhi High Court.

The petition was an essay partly in pathos and largely in legalese. Yamuna bemoaned in the petition, “I have constantly been of service to citizens of Delhi without expecting any reward from them. At the same time, I did not expect them to curse me as they are doing now.” The petition stated three reasons why Yamuna had a Constitutional right to be protected by the court.

1)     Idols have been accepted as juridical persons by the courts. Just like idols, rivers are also worshipped by people. Therefore, in recognition of their divinity, rivers also need to be recognised as persons. Under Article 21 of our Constitution, “no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.” Personal liberty includes the right to free movement within India. Hence neither the government(s) nor the people have a right to frown upon Yamuna for breaching her banks.

2)     Under Article 51A(g), it is the duty of every citizen of India “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures.” Though as a Directive Principle this duty is not enforceable, the petition pleads that as a measure of judicial progressivism, the court may issue a writ of mandamus directing the government to ensure that citizens discharge their duty for the sake of sustainable environment. Redirecting the rivers to facilitate construction of buildings must be stopped as an immediate measure. Condign punishment should be meted out to those throwing waste and pollutants into the river.

3)     Unprecedented torrential rains inundating almost all parts of Delhi during July, 2023 were an act of God (force majeure) and therefore Yamuna was freed from the obligation to provide trouble-free service to Delhiites during this crucial period. People do not have any right to blame the river for the havoc caused by the act of God.

(Though this is an imaginary petition, this essay is written with a view to sensitising us to the need for keeping our rivers clean and protecting them  from the greed of real estate developers.)