Hoflield analysis on Mohd

Salim v. state of Uttarakhand & others

By taking Salmonds jurisprudence
THE RESULT, NEVERTHELESS, IS UNIMPORTANT IN THIS CONTEXT.
ACCORDING TO HOHFELD11, THERE MUST BE A RIGHT WITH ONE
PERSON IN ORDER TO IMPOSE A COMPARABLE OBLIGATION ON
ANOTHER, AND RIVERS ARE NOT EXPRESSLY ENTITLED TO
PROTECTION, PRESERVATION, AND CONSERVATION FROM ANY FORM
OF EXPLOITATION. A DUTY CAN BE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE IN
FURTHERANCE. A NEGATIVE DUTY SUGGESTS THAT THE PERSON
WHO IS BOUND BY IT SHOULD REFRAIN FROM PERFORMING AN ACT,
WHEREAS A POSITIVE RESPONSIBILITY SUGGESTS THAT AN ACT
OUGHT TO BE UNDERTAKEN. WHEN THE PARTY WHO IS OBLIGATED
BY THE OBLIGATION VIOLATES IT, IT IS CONSIDERED A VIOLATION OF
THE DUTY AND IS PUNISHED ACCORDINGLY.
THIS LEGAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE DUTY DOES NOT,
HOWEVER, AUTOMATICALLY IMPLY THAT IT WILL BE ENFORCED OR
THAT THOSE WHO ARE OBLIGATED BY IT WILL BE PUNISHED FOR
FAILING TO PERFORM IT. 12 AN INTEREST MUST GET BOTH LEGAL
PROTECTION AND RECOGNITION IN ORDER TO BECOME THE
SUBJECT OF A LEGAL RIGHT. THE LAW CURRENTLY PROTECTS
RIVERS' INTERESTS TO SOME EXTENT BY MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO
POLLUTE, INTRUDE UPON, OR DAMAGE THEM. THIS RESULTS IN
FINES AND OTHER PENALTIES. THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT RIVERS
HAVE RIGHTS, THOUGH. THE LEGISLATION SHOULD NOT BE
INTERPRETED AS IMPOSING A DUTY ON MANKIND TOWARDS
RIVERS; RATHER, IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS A DUTY TOWARDS
RIVERS.
SINCE THERE IS NO LEGAL OBLIGATION BETWEEN PEOPLE AND
RIVERS, THERE IS NO VINCULUM JURIS BETWEEN THEM. LET'S
LOOK AT THE KIND OF OBLIGATIONS THAT THE RIVER MIGHT
HAVE. ONE MAY CLAIM THAT THE RIVER HAS A RESPONSIBILITY
TO PROVIDE PEOPLE WITH WATER FOR A VARIETY OF USES,
INCLUDING DRINKING, DOMESTIC USE, ETC. IF THERE IS ENOUGH
WATER IN THE RIVER, WHICH DEPENDS ON ADEQUATE RAINFALL
AS IN THE CASE OF RIVERS ON PENINSULAS, THE RIVER CAN
PERFORM THIS FUNCTION.
IT DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF VARIABLES. RAINFALL HAS BEEN
DECLINING IN RECENT YEARS, AND THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS
IS HUMAN-CAUSED POLLUTION, A DECLINE IN THE NUMBER OF
TREES, AND OTHER FACTORS MOSTLY RELATED TO BEHAVIOUR
AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES.THEREFORE, IT IS IMPERATIVE
THAT PEOPLE STOP CUTTING DOWN TREES IN ORDER TO MEET
THEIR DEVELOPMENTAL NEEDS. BY DOING SO, THE RIVER WILL
RECEIVE ITS FAIR SHARE OF RAINFALL AND CAN FULFIL ITS
ROLE OF PROVIDING WATER FOR PEOPLE. THE RIVER MIGHT
ALSO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ENOUGH FISH FOR THOSE WHO
HAVE RIPARIAN RIGHTS.
THIS IS ALSO CONCEIVABLE. NONETHELESS, THIS PROBLEM
SHARES SOME OF THE SAME FLAWS AS THE PROBLEM DISCUSSED
IN THE PREVIOUS PARAGRAPH. THERE SHOULD NOT BE A DECLINE
IN THE RIVER'S WATER QUALITY THAT COULD DESTROY THE
AQUATIC AND OTHER LIFE FORMS THERE IN ORDER FOR THE
RIVER TO CONTINUE TO OFFER ENOUGH FISH TO THE LOCAL
FISHERMAN. THIS CAN ONLY BE GUARANTEED IF THE RIVER IS
NOT POLLUTED, WHICH IS MOSTLY THE RESULT OF HUMAN
BEHAVIOUR AND DEVELOPMENT, IN WHICH INDUSTRIAL WASTE,
UNTREATED/PARTIALLY TREATED SEWAGE, ETC., ARE DUMPED
INTO THE RIVER.
YET, IT IS UNREALISTIC. ONE COULD SAY THAT THE RIVER HAS A
RESPONSIBILITY TO REFRAIN FROM FLOODING AND
ENDANGERING A PERSON'S LIFE OR LIMB. NONETHELESS, THE
RIVER WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED IF IT
BREACHES THE SAME. IN SUCH A SITUATION, COMPENSATION FOR
THE VICTIMS MAY BE PAID OUT OF THE RIVER FUND. AS CAN BE
SEEN, RIVERS HAVE OBLIGATIONS, AND WHETHER THEY FULFIL
THEM OR NOT DEPENDS ON OUTSIDE CAUSES.
NONETHELESS, AS MAY BE DEDUCED FROM THE FOREGOING,
EVEN WHILE A RIVER CANNOT PROVE THAT IT HAS A DUTY, THIS
CANNOT PREVENT RIVERS FROM BEING GIVEN LEGAL PERSONS.
GIVING UNBORN INFANTS LEGAL PERSONHOOD PROVIDES A
PARALLEL TO THIS. DESPITE NOT HAVING ANY OBLIGATIONS,
THEY ARE GIVEN LEGAL PERSONHOOD AND HENCE LEGAL
IDENTITY.
Thank you