UNIT 4

What is Right?
• Rights may also exist on a moral or legal matter. For
example, an employee has a moral right to be treated with
appreciation and respect by an employer. Employment and
discrimination laws provide the legal framework defining
an employee's rights to freedom from being disadvantaged
by an employer's discriminatory intent based on certain
grounds, such as age, sex, handicap, or religion.
• A moral right cannot be the basis for seeking relief through
the legal system. There must be a law creating a right
before that right can be enforced through the legal system.
 Definition of Rights by Different Jurists
• Austin: About the definition and the analysis of the legal
rights there is a great deal of difference of opinion among the
jurists. According to Austin, right is a faculty which resides in
a determinate party or parties by virtue of a given law and
which avails against a party or parties (or answers to a duty
lying on a party or parties) other than the party or parties in
whom it resides. According to him, a person can be said to
have a right only when another or others are bound or
obliged by law to do something or forbear in regard to him. It
means that a right has always a corresponding duty. This
definition, as it appears on is very face, is imperfect because
in this definition there is no place for imperfect rights.
• According to Salmond, A legal right is an “interest which is protected and recognized by the
rule of law. It is an interest which has its duty and disregard of which is wrong”.
• According to Salmond, there are five essential conditions that need to be fulfilled:
• The person of inheritance/ Subject of right:
– He shall be the person who is the owner of the right. He is the subject of the legal right. Such a person is called a
person of inheritance. Example:-Y purchase a van for Rs 20,000. Here Y is the subject of the right.
– Even in the case when the property is bequest to the unborn child, the unborn child is the owner of the property
even though he is uncertain.
• The subject of duty/ the person of incidence:
– It is the duty of another person or persons to respect and recognize the right of the person. Such a person who
has a legal duty is called a person of incidence. Example- If A has a legal right against B, then it is the duty of B to
respect the right of A.
• Contents or Subject Matter of legal right:
– The subject matter of legal right is an essential element. It deals with the subject matter of the legal right. It is
related to do something or to refrain from doing certain acts or forbearance. It obligates the person to forbear or
act in favour of the person possessing a legal right. Example-Y purchase a van for Rs 20,000. Here Y is the subject
of the right. The subject matter ( Y) has a legal right and he can exclude others.
• The object of the legal right:
– The object of the legal rights is a thing or object over which the legal right is exercised. Example- A purchases the
car for Rs 1,00,000. Here the car is the object.
• Title of the legal right:
– The title is the process by which the right is vested or conferred on the person. It is certain events by which right
is acquired from its previous owner. Example- By purchase or gift or will etc.
• Rights guaranteed by the Indian Constitution
• The Constitution of India has guaranteed certain rights to the citizens of
India which are known as Fundamental Right which is considered to be the
most important rights. If these rights get violated then the person has the
right to move to the Supreme Court of India or The High Court for
enforcing rights.

Following rights are guaranteed by the Court:

• Right to Equality (Article 14)
• Right to freedom (Article 19)
• Right against Exploitation (Article 23 and 24)
• Right to Freedom of Religion (Article 25)
• Right to Life (Article 21)
• Right to Constitutional Remedies (Article 32)
 THEORIES OF RIGHTS
WILL THEORY
• This theory says that the purpose of law is to grant the individual the means of
self-expression or self-assertion. Therefore, right emerges from the human
will. Holmes In his definition of right puts the same view more clearly. He
defines legal right as nothing but a permission to exercise certain natural
powers and upon certain conditions to obtain protection, restitution, or
compensation by the aid of public force'. Hegel, Kant, Hume and others say
that by right is meant the power of self-expression or will.

Will-Theory criticized: Duguit is vehemently opposed to the will theory.

According to him, the basis of law is the objective fact of social solidarity and
not the subjective will. The idea of will is anti-social. The will theory has been
criticized on other grounds also. Those who greatly emphasis the element of
will confuse the fact with abstract ideas, that is, they do not make the
distinction between what is and what ought to be.
• THE INTEREST THEORY
– The profounder of this theory is Ihering-a great
German jurist. He defines legal right as a legally
protected interest'. According to him, the basis of
right is interest' and not will'. His definition of law is in
terms of purpose'. Law always has a purpose. In case
of rights the purpose of law is to protect certain
interests and not the wills or the assertions of
individuals.
– The main object of law is protection of human
interests
and to avert conflict between their individual interest.
These interests are not created by the state, but they
exist in the life of the community itself.
Hohfeld’s Analysis of Rights
• Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, a Harvard Law professor in
the early part of the 20th Century, developed an
analytical framework for understanding interests in
property.
• Hohfeld’s eight terms are arranged in 2 tables of
‘correlatives’ and opposites’ that structure the internal
relationships among the different fundamental rights,
this is called ‘Hohfeldian Analysis’.
• Jural Contradictories were not part of Hofeldian Analysis.
• But before studying the table we must understand the
difference between the terms in the table.
 Right, Duty, Liberty
• Liberty- Liberty/privilege means the absence of restraint.
• Difference between Right and Liberty
• ‘Right’ implies that the law enjoins on another the duty of doing (or
not doing) something for the benefit of the person entitled to the
right. ‘Liberty’ implies that the law does not forbid a person from
doing (or not doing) an act arises out of the absence of duties imposed
upon him.
• Liberty arises out of absence of right in another and absence of duty in
oneself.
• Salmond says ‘Rights are what others are to do for me; liberties are
what I may do for myself.’
 Power and Immunity
• A power is an ability on the part of the person to
produce a change in a given legal relation.
• Example- a person has power to accept an offer,
making a contract.
• When we talk about power there is no co-relative
duty on another person but in context to right
there is a co-relative duty on another person.
• Exemption from power of another is immunity.
 TYPES of RIGHTS
PERFECT RIGHT IMPERFECT RIGHT
According to salmond, a perfect right is An imperfect right is that which is
one which corresponds to a perfect duty recognized by law but cannot be enforced
I .e., which is enforced by law. by law due to some impediment. These
Example: may be turn into perfect rights.
A contract specially enforceable through
the Court of law is an example of perfect
right.

POSITIVE RIGHT NEGATIVE RIGHT

A positive right corresponds positive duty Negative right corresponds to negative
and the person subject to the duty is duties. The enjoyment of negative rights
bound to do something. is complete unless such interference takes
place.
REAL RIGHT PERSONAL RIGHT
According to salomond, a real right A personal right corresponds to a duty
corresponds to a duty imposed upon persons imposed upon determinate individuals. It
in general. It available against whole word. against a particular person. Personal rights are
Real rights are generally a negative rights as generally positive right as it imposes a duty on
the duties which can be expected form the a particular person to do something.
whole world are of a negative character. Example:
Example: I have a personal right to receive compensation
I have a right to be deprived of my life is a real form any individual who is any harms me.
right as it is available against the whole world.

RIGHT IN REM RIGHT IN PERSONAM

It is derived form the Roman term action in It is derived form the Roman term “ action in
Rem” . It is available the whole world Examples personam,” Right in personam corresponds to
are rights of ownership and possession. My duty imposed upon determinate persons.
right of possession and ownership is protected Example:
by law against all those who those may Rights under a contract are right in Personam
interfere with the same. as the parties to the contract alone are bound
by it.
PROPRIETARY RIGHT PERSONAL RIGHT
The proprietary rights of a person include his Personal right pertain to man, s status or
estate, his assets and his property in many standing in the law. They promote the man, s
forms. They have some economic or monetary well being. Personal rights possess merely
value. They possess both judicial and economic judicial importance.
importance. Example:
Example: Right to life, reputation etc are personal rights.
The right to debt, the right to goodwill etc.

RIGHTS IN RE-PROPRIA RIGHT IN RE-ALIENA

Rights in Re propria are rights in one, s own Rights is Re aliena are rights over the property
property. These are complete rights to which of another person. These rights derogate form
other right can be attached. the rights of another person and add to the
rights of their holder.
Example:
My right of way across the land another person
is a right re aliena.
RIGHTS IN RE-PROPRIA RIGHT IN RE-ALIENA
Rights in Re propria are rights in one, s own Rights is Re aliena are rights over the property
property. These are complete rights to which of another person. These rights derogate form
other right can be attached. the rights of another person and add to the
rights of their holder.
Example:
My right of way across the land another person
is a right re aliena.

PRINCIPLE RIGHT ACCESSORY RIGHT

Principal rights exist independently of other Accessory rights are appurtenant to other
rights.. rights and they have a beneficial on the
Example: principal rights.
‘X’ owes money to ‘Y’ and he executes a
mortgage deed in favour of ‘Y’. the debt is the
principal right and the security in the form of
mortgage is the accessory right.
LEGAL RIGHT EQUITABLE RIGHT
Legal rights are those which were recognized Equitable Rights:
by common Law Court e. g., right to vote etc. Equitable rights are those which were
recognized by the Court of chancery.
Example:
The right of the mortgagor to redeem the
property is regarded as a creation of the Courts
of equity and is an equitable right knows as the
equity of redemption.

VESTED RIGHT CONTINGENT RIGHT

A vested is a right in right in respect of which According to paton when part of the in
all events necessary to vest it completely in the vestitive acts have occurred, the right is
owner have happened. No other conditions contingent until the appening of all the facts
remains to be satisfied. on which the title depends.
Example: Example:
If a valid deed of transfer is executed by ;A; in ‘A’ executes a deed in favour of ‘B’ according to
favour of ‘B’, ‘B’ acquires a vested right. which he entitles to the possession of certain
property when attains the age of 21, the right
is contingent right and it will be vested only
when he attains the age of 21.s
VESTED RIGHT CONTINGENT RIGHT
A vested is a right in right in respect of which According to paton when part of the in
all events necessary to vest it completely in the vestitive acts have occurred, the right is
owner have happened. No other conditions contingent until the appening of all the facts
remains to be satisfied. on which the title depends.
Example: Example:
If a valid deed of transfer is executed by ;A; in ‘A’ executes a deed in favour of ‘B’ according to
favour of ‘B’, ‘B’ acquires a vested right. which he entitles to the possession of certain
property when attains the age of 21, the right
is contingent right and it will be vested only
when he attains the age of 21.s

PUBLIC RIGHT PRIVATE RIGHT

A public right is possessed by every member of A private right is concerned only with the
the public. It is between a state and the private individuals. Both the parties connected with
individual e. g. , right to vote etc. the right are private persons e.g., contract
entered into by two individuals.
PRIMARY RIGHT SECONDARY RIGHT
Primary rights are also called antecedent, Secondary rights are also called sanctioning,
sanctioned or enjoyment rights. These are restitutory or remedial rights. Secondary rights
those rights which are independent of a wrong are a part of the machinery provided by the
having been committed. They exist for own state of the redress of injury done to the
sake. They are antecedent to be wrongful act primary rights. Their necessity arises on
or omission. account of the fact that primary rights are very
Example: often violated by the persons.
Right of reputation, Right to life etc. Example:
Rights to obtain compensation for defamation
to person.

INHERITABLE RIGHTS UNINHERITABLE RIGHT

Inheritable rights are those which survives its A right is uninheritable if it dies with its owners
owners. e. g. personal rights die with its owner and
Example: cannot be inherit.
‘A’ dies leaves his property him ‘B’ his legal heir
becomes owner of such property. This is an
inheritable right.
Servient and Dominant rights
• A servient right is one which is subject to an
encumbrance. The encumbrance which derogates form it
may be contrasted as dominant.
Example:
“X” as the owner of certain house a right of way over the
land of ‘Y’ , his neighbor. The house of ‘X’ is the dominant
heritage and ‘X’ is the dominant owner. The house of ‘Y’
is the servient heritage and ‘Y’ is the servient owner.
Municipal rights & International rights:
Municipal right are conferred by the law of a country, it is
enjoyed by the individuals living in a country.
International rights are conferred by international law.
The subject of the International rights are the persons
recognized as such by International law.
• Ordinary And Fundamental Rights:
– Some rights are ordinary and some are
fundamental rights. The distinction between the
two lies that fundamental rights are often
guaranteed by the Constitution i. e., right to life,
liberty etc.
 MEANING OF PERSON
•The term ‘person’ is derived from Latin word ‘persona’ which means a
mask worn by actors playing different roles in a drama. In modern days it
has been used in a sense of a living person capable of having rights and
duties.
•Now it has been used in different senses in different disciplines.
– In the philosophical and moral sense the term has been used to mean the
rational quality of human being.
–In law it has a wide meaning. It means not only human beings but also
associations as well. Law personifies some real thing and treats it as a legal
person. This personification both theoretically and practically clarifies thought and
expression. There are human beings who are not persons in legal sense such as
outlaws and slaves (in early times). In the same way there are legal persons who
are not human beings such as corporations, companies, trade unions; institutions
like universities, hospitals are examples of artificial personality recognized by law
in the modern age. Hence, the person is an important category of concept in legal
theory, particularly business and corporate laws have extensively used the
concept of person for protection as well as imposing the liability.
• Persons are those who are recognized by law as being capable of having
legal rights and being bound by legal duties.
• It means both- a human being, a body of persons or a corporation or
other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and
duties.
• Savingy has defined person as the subject or bearer of right. But Holland
has criticised this definition on the ground that persons are not subject
to right alone but also duties. He says: the right not only resides in, but
is also available against persons. There are persons of incidence as well
as of inherence.
• In the words of Salmond: “So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is
any being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Any
being that is so capable is a person, whether a human being or not, and
no being that is not so capable is a person even though he be a man.”
Salmond further explains that the extension of the conception of
personality beyond the class of human beings is one of the most
noteworthy achievements of the legal imagination.
• Persons can be classified into (a) natural person, and (b) legal or artificial
or juristic person.
 NATURAL PERSON
• According to Austin the term ‘person’ refers to a physical or natural person including
every being who can be deemed as human. An individual who has his own legal
personality is known as a ‘person’ in jurisprudence. Generally, a living human being
is considered a natural person. In the olden days, slaves were not allowed to have
any privileges that a legal person possesses, rather, by the virtue of their birth, they
were only considered as natural persons. Most of the rights and privileges
guaranteed by the law with duties and obligations are conferred upon natural
persons. A natural person may sue and be sued as per the law. Human rights and
fundamental rights are laid down for the benefit of such natural persons.
• A natural person has civil rights such as the right to life, the right to vote, the right to
privacy, the right to marry, the right to practice a profession, the right to travel, the
right to religion, etc. Such rights are meaningful and useful to human beings, hence,
they are conferred only upon natural persons. However, few rights such as the right
to marry and the right to vote are subject to the age attained by a natural person.
• In its broadest sense, a natural person as per jurisprudence is a reasonable and
prudent human being. They shall be empowered with all those rights that any
person living in that area would possess. A person is considered a natural person
when he is born and he ceases to be a natural person after his death. When a person
is dead, his body is honoured first, later his property and reputation are considered.
 ARTIFICIAL PERSON
• As time passed by, the concept of persons under jurisprudence became wider. Natural persons
started developing entities for their businesses, for this purpose, certain natural persons were
required to act on behalf of such entities. However, a complex situation arose when the entities
were to be sued. In order to avoid this problem, the concept of a ‘legal/artificial’ person was
introduced.
• In jurisprudence, an entity or a person is attributed as a legal person only when he is capable of
suing and being sued in a court of law. For example, a legal person can be a company, a State, an
idol, a trade union, etc. The law has the power to transform an entity into an artificial person
who has legal status and value. This is done by the law to clarify the identity of the one who is
suing or being sued. The law acts as the means that provides the capacity to become a legal
person for carrying out the procedures in the court with ease. Thus, legal persons are conferred
with rights and duties by the law for the purpose of the law.
• The main concept to understand here is that all-natural persons are considered legal persons but
all legal persons are not natural persons. This can be understood with the help of an example – A
person living in Hyderabad will be considered as a legal person and a natural person. However, a
business established in Chennai will only be considered as a legal person and not a natural person
as it only entails legal existence.
• Legal personality is not just limited to businesses, it also extends to the position of a person. A
president or a deputy officer are legal positions given to people. This means that irrespective of
who holds such a position, the duties to be carried out will be the same. Hence, a person holding
a position may be sued for the actions done by them while being in the course of such a position.
Further, the concept of corporate personality is also created by the law. A corporate personality
has more rights and duties when compared to other legal persons.
 LEGAL STATUS OF AN UNBORN CHILD
• As per legal fiction, a child in its mother’s womb is
considered as already born. When he is born alive, he
will attain legal status. In usual terms, the law only
gives attention to living natural persons but in the case
of an infant ventre sa mere (a child in its mother’s
womb), the law makes an exception. A child in its
mother’s womb is capable of acquiring certain rights
and inheriting property, but it all depends on whether
the child is born alive or not. An unborn child is
considered a person during partition. Damages can
also be claimed by such an unborn child for the injury
sustained while in its mother’s womb.
 INDIAN LAWS DEALING WITH AN UNBORN CHILD
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
– Section 315 – This section of the IPC states that inflicting prenatal injury on a child possessing
the capability of being born and where such injury affects it from being born amounts to an
offence of child destruction.
• Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
– Section 416 – This section of the CrPC states that in case any woman who is sentenced to
death is found to be pregnant, an order to postpone the execution must be passed by the
High Court, or if it deems it fit, the execution can be reduced to life imprisonment.
• Transfer of Property Act, 1882
– Section 13 – This section of the said Act states that a property can be transferred for the
benefit of an unborn person through the means of trust.
• The Indian Succession Act, 1925
– Section 114 – This section provides for the creation of prior interest before the unborn child
is made the owner of the corporeal or incorporeal property. However, no property will be
deemed to be vested in the unborn child until he is born alive as per the Act.
– Under Hindu Law, an unborn child is deemed to be a living person for certain purposes. The
rights of an unborn child that is in the womb of its mother are dealt with by Section 20 of the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956. As per Mitakshara Law, in a Hindu Undivided Family, an unborn
child will have an interest in coparcenary property. Under Mohammedan Law a gift in the
name of a person who does not exist is void.
 LEGAL STATUS OF DEAD MAN
• Dead man is not a legal person. As soon as a man dies he ceases to have a legal
personality. Dead men do not remain as bearers of rights and duties it is said that they
have laid down their rights and duties with their death. Action personalis moritur cum
persona- action dies with the death of a man. With death personality comes to an end. A
dead man ceases to have any legal right or bound by any legal duty. Yet, law to some
extent, recognises and takes account of the desires or intentions of a deceased person.
Law ensures a decent burial, it respects the wishes of the deceased regarding the disposal
of his property, protects his reputation and in some cases continues pending action
instituted by or against a person who is now deceased.
• As far as a dead man’s body is concerned criminal law secures a decent burial to all dead
men. Section 297 of Indian Penal Code also provides punishment for committing crime
which amounts to indignity to any human corpse. The criminal law provides that any
imputation aganist a deceased person, if it harms the reputation of that person if living
and is intended to hurt the feeling of his family or other near relatives, shall be offence of
defamation under sec 499 of the Indian Penal Code.
• The Supreme Court in the case of Ashray Adhikar Abhiyan v Union of India has held that
even a homeless person when found dead on the road, has a right of a decent burial or
cremation as per his religious faith.
• Regarding the property of the dead man the law carries out the wishes of the deceased
example, a will made by him regarding the disposal of his property. This is done to protect
the interest of those who are living and who would get the benefit under the will.
 LEGAL STATUS OF DEAD MAN
1) His Body:
A living person is interested in the treatment to be given to his own body. A person is
interested in a decent funeral and good burial. Criminal law secures a decent burial for all
dead persons and the violation of a grave is a criminal offence. It is because to the
respect the feelings of the relatives of a dead person, not in protection of dead person
are right.
2) His reputation:
Everyone is interested in maintaining reputation even after death. The reputation of a
dead person receives some degree of protection from the criminal law. Defamation suit
can be filed for loss of reputation of a dead person. If the publication is an attack on the
internet of living persons, as a matter of fact, this right is in reality not that of the dead
person but of his living descendants.
3) His Property/ Estate:
A man is dead but his hand may continue to regulate and determine the enjoyment of
the property he owned while he was alive. He can dispose of his property by WILL. when
a person dies intestate ( dies living will) the property is distributed according to the WILL.
 LEGAL STATUS OF ANIMALS
• Law does not recognise beasts or lower animals as persons because they are
merely things and have no natural or legal rights. Salmond regards them
mere objects of legal rights and duties but never subjects of them. Animals
are not capable of having rights and duties and hence they are not legal
persons.
• Modern Law - Modern Law does not recognise animals as bearer of rights
and duties. Law is made for human beings and all things including animals
are for men. No animal can be the owner of property from a person to an
animal. Animals are merely the object of transfer and are a kind of property,
which are owned and possessed by persons. Of course, for the wrongs done
by animals the master is held liable. This duty or liability of the master arises
due to public policy and public expediency. The liability of the master is
strict and not a vicarious liability. The animal could be said to have a legal
personality only if the liability of the master is considered vicarious.
 LEGAL STATUS OF ANIMALS (CNTND)
• In certain cases, the law assumes the liability of the master for an animal as
direct while in other cases, liability is not direct. Thus, for keeping animals that
are not of dangerous nature the master is not liable for the damage it may do,
unless he knows that it was dangerous. The knowledge of the defendant must
be shown as to their propensity to do the act in question. However, if the animal
is of ferocious nature, the master is responsible for the wrong if he shows
negligence in handling it. The owner of animals of this class is also responsible
for their trespasses and consequent damage. If a man’s cattle, sheep or poultry,
stray into his neighbour’s land or garden, and do such damage as might
ordinarily be expected to be done by things of that sort, the owner is liable to
his neighbour for the consequences. A charitable trust can be created for the
maintenance of stray cattle, broken horses and other animals. Such a trust is
created with a view to promote public welfare and advancement of religion.
However, if the charitable trust is created only for the benefit of a single horse or
a dog, it cannot be regarded as public charitable trust
 NATURAL PERSON LEGAL PERSON
1. A natural person is a human being and is a real and living 1. Legal person is being, real or imaginary whom the law
person. regards as capable of rights or duties.

2. He has characteristics of the power of thought speech and 2. Legal persons are also termed “fictitious”, “juristic”,
choice. “artificial” or “moral”.

3. Unborn, dead man and lower animals are not considered 3. In law, idiots, dead men, unborn persons, corporations,
as natural persons. companies, idols, etc. are treated as legal persons.

4. The layman does not recognize idiot, company, 4. The legal persons perform their functions through natural
corporation, idol etc. as persons. persons only.

5. He is also a legal person and accordingly performs their 5. There are different varieties of legal persons, viz.
functions Corporations, Companies, Universities, President, Societies,
Municipalities, Gram panchayats, etc.

6. Natural person can live for a limited period i.e. he cannot 6. Legal person can live more than 100 years. Example: (a) the
live more than 100 years. post of “American President” is a corporation, which was
created some three hundred years ago, and still it is
continuing. (b) “East India Company” was established in
sixteenth century in London, and now still is in existence
 LEGAL STATUS OF IDOLS
• An idol is “a representation or symbol of an object of worship”, in
Indian society, idols hold a place of religious, social, and cultural
significance. The idols that we worship every day possess rights and
certain obligations and are considered to be juristic persons, which
are non-human legal entities who possess rights and duties and are
recognized by the law. Idols in India are considered to be minors and
the priest or the shebait is considered to be the idol’s guardian and
performs the duties and also enforces the rights of the idol.
• The inception of the legal personality of Hindu idols in India can be
traced back to the landmark case of Promatha Nath Mullick v
Pradyumna Kumar Mullick. In this case, Lord Shaw stated that a
Hindu idol is a juristic entity and possesses juridical status, which
means that the idol can sue and be sued. The idol has interests of its
own and these interests are attended to by the guardian, who is the
person in charge of the deity.
• Hindu Idols in India can also possess property which can be taxed under the Income Tax
Act, this principle was established by the case of Yogendra Nath Naskar v Commissioner
of Income Tax, In this case, the Supreme Court held that Hindu Idols are juristic entities
and are capable of holding property. A Hindu deity falls within the ambit of the meaning
of the word individual under the Income Tax Act and hence, the property held by the
deity can be taxed. It was also stated that neither god nor any supernatural being can
possess a legal personality but the deity is a representation and a symbol and if the deity
is allowed to hold property, it must be taxed as well. Another case decided in this regard
was the case of Devkinandan V Muralidhar in which the Supreme Court held that the
property of a Hindu temple or an idol vests in the deity and the shebait only has the right
to possession and management of the estate.
• In the landmark case of Indian Young Lawyers Association v State of Kerala, popularly
known as the Sabrimala case, Justice DY Chandrachud clarified that although deities have
the capacity to possess rights due to their juridical status, they cannot however be
bearers of fundamental rights.
• Legal personality and the concept of juridical persons is a fiction of law. The only natural
persons capable of possessing rights and duties are Human beings. Law confers this
artificial personality to non-human entities and treats them as legal persons only to
bestow the characteristics and the capacity of rights and duties to these entities. This
legal status has also been conferred to rivers where the court of law has ruled that a river
is a living entity and it must be preserved and protected as it possesses rights and duties.
In the case of Mohd Salim v State of Uttarakhand, Ganga and Yamuna were given status
of living being.