Anthropocentric vs Ecocentric Approach: Whose Interests Does Environmental Law Protect?

Why do we protect the environment? Because a clean river, a forest or a tiger is useful to human beings, or because they have value in themselves? The first answer is anthropocentric (human-centred); the second is ecocentric (nature-centred). The choice matters for law: it shapes who can sue, what harm counts, and how conflicts between development and nature are resolved. Indian environmental law began as largely anthropocentric but the Supreme Court has, since 2012, expressly embraced an ecocentric approach in several cases, and some High Courts have gone further to recognise the rights of nature.

1. The Anthropocentric Approach

Anthropocentrism places human beings at the centre: nature has value because, and to the extent that, it serves human needs, health, welfare and enjoyment. Environmental protection is justified by human interests such as clean air for health, water for drinking and agriculture, forests for timber and climate regulation, and biodiversity for medicines. Most environmental statutes are framed this way: the EPA's definition of 'environment' refers to the inter-relationship of water, air and land with 'human beings, other living creatures, plants, micro-organism and property', and pollution is defined by harm to health and property. The right to a healthy environment under Article 21 is itself a human right. Anthropocentrism has the advantage of fitting existing legal concepts (rights, standing, damages) but tends to undervalue species and ecosystems that have no obvious use.

2. The Ecocentric Approach

Ecocentrism holds that nature has intrinsic value, independent of its usefulness to humans, and that humans are part of the ecological community rather than its masters. Its intellectual roots include Aldo Leopold's 'land ethic' (A Sand County Almanac, 1949: 'a thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community'), Arne Naess's 'deep ecology' (1973), and Christopher Stone's essay Should Trees Have Standing? (1972), cited by Justice Douglas in his dissent in Sierra Club v. Morton (1972). A related but narrower view, biocentrism, extends moral concern to all living beings. Ecocentrism leads to ideas such as the rights of nature, legal personhood for rivers and forests, and giving priority to species survival.

3. The Indian Judicial Shift towards Ecocentrism

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (2012) 3 SCC 277 (the wild buffalo case): the Supreme Court observed that environmental justice could be achieved only if we drift away from the principle of anthropocentrism to ecocentrism, and that many laws treat animals as mere property, whereas the Constitution (Articles 48A and 51A(g)) requires compassion for living creatures;
• Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India v. Union of India, (2013) 8 SCC 234 (Kuno lion relocation): the Court held that the ecocentric approach, which focuses on the survival of species, must prevail over the interests of a State in retaining all Asiatic lions in Gir, and directed relocation to Kuno;
• Animal Welfare Board of India v. A. Nagaraja, (2014) 7 SCC 547 (jallikattu): the Court recognised the intrinsic worth of animals, read the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act with Article 51A(g), and held that animals have a right to live with honour and dignity (a position later affected by State amendments upheld in 2023); and
• M.K. Ranjitsinh v. Union of India (2024): the Court balanced protection of the critically endangered Great Indian Bustard (ecocentric) against the climate benefits of renewable energy for people (anthropocentric), recognising both.

High Courts have gone further: the Uttarakhand High Court declared the Ganga and Yamuna legal persons (Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, 2017, stayed by the Supreme Court), extended personhood to glaciers, forests and lakes (Lalit Miglani v. State of Uttarakhand, 2017), and to the animal kingdom (Narayan Dutt Bhatt v. Union of India, 2018); the Madras High Court (2022) described Mother Nature as a living being with rights. Internationally, Ecuador's Constitution (2008) recognises the rights of nature (Pachamama), New Zealand's Te Awa Tupua Act (2017) made the Whanganui river a legal person, and Colombia's Constitutional Court (2016) recognised the Atrato river as a subject of rights.

4. Key Differences

5. Related Topics and Provisions