Sacred Waters: Religious Freedom and Environmental Protection in India

Sathyavrathan TC is a fourth-year B.Com. LL.B. student at SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur, with interests in environmental law, constitutional law, and contemporary socio-legal issues.

SUMMARY:

This article critically examines the complex social, legal, ethical and philosophical principles governing waterbodies with particular emphasis on the interplay between religious freedom and environmental protection laws. It also draws upon various instances of river pollution under the guise of religious worship, having significant adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem and the local consumption requirements. The article provides empirical evidence of river pollution and its impact on the environment. Through the constitutional lens, statutory frameworks, and landmark judicial pronouncements, the study examines how Indian law attempts to reconcile the devotional imperative to worship water with the imperious duty to preserve it for future generations.

INTRODUCTION

Water has always occupied a sacred space in the collective consciousness of Indian civilisation. Across Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, and numerous other traditions, rivers are not merely viewed as hydrological resources but as divine entities worthy of reverence and protection. Yet in contemporary India, the very cultural and religious practices that venerate these waters have paradoxically become vectors for their destruction.

One might say that practices such as idol worship, immersion of cremation ash, dumping of offerings such as ghee, clothes, oil, garlands or bathing rituals, are essential religious practices. However, the counter environmental impact of it, such as massive release of Plaster of Paris, paints and other non-biodegradable materials from the idols, bacterial proliferation from the ash, high levels of human waste, soap and other debris cause catastrophic impact on aquatic life, even to the extent of pushing them to the verge of extinction. Prolonged consumption of such contaminated water causes waterborne diseases, thereby straining public health and making the freshwater resources totally unfit for domestic purposes.

RELIGION AND PROTECTION OF WATERBODIES:

Rivers are always considered sacred and holy in Indian society due to the prevalence of religion. Religions in India have always worshipped and sanctified rivers. Therefore, it would be relevant to cite some extracts from religious texts to understand how rivers were considered and worshipped in India.

“Maa aapo himsih, maa aushadhi himsi,” says Yajur Veda. The exact meaning of the said verse is, “Do not destroy or harm the waters, do not destroy the medicinal plants.” This profound line from the Yajur Veda reflects ancient ecological wisdom, emphasising that water sources and medicinal herbs are sacred life-givers that must be preserved rather than exploited.

Rig Veda 10.75 is a famous Vedic hymn known as the Nadi Stuti Sukta (Hymn of the Rivers). It praises the mighty Indus River (Sindhu) and lists numerous northern rivers of the ancient Vedic civilisation in a specific geographical sweep. Rig Veda I.122.6 says, “May the Sindhu, the renowned bestower of wealth, hear us, fertilising our broad fields with water.” Here, Sindhu is said to mean the deity presiding over water. The Hindu religious Vedic texts had always worshipped rivers as goddesses. This can be seen in various places in Vedic texts. Rig Veda II.41.16 says, “Saraswati, best of mothers, best of rivers, best of Goddesses, we are, as it were, of no repute; grant us, mother, distinction.”

Apart from Hindu religious texts, various Abrahamic religions also give importance to water resources and preach the protection of water bodies. Supplying a few examples would indeed be helpful for a better understanding.

Genesis 1:9–10 (NIV) quotes, “God called the dry ground ‘land,’ and the gathered waters he called ‘seas.’ And God saw that it was good.” This verse shows that water is part of God’s good creation and deserves respect. Genesis 2:15 (NIV) mentions, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.” This is often interpreted as imposing a duty to protect and preserve the environment, including water resources. Psalm 65:9– 13 quotes, “You care for the land and water it; you enrich it abundantly….”This describes God as the provider and sustainer of water and fertility. Psalm 104:10–13 states, “He makes springs pour water into the ravines; it flows between the mountains. They give water to all the beasts of the field…”This provides that water is meant for the benefit of all living creatures.

“Do not waste water, even if you perform your ablution on the bank of a flowing river.” (Sunan Ibn Majah, Hadith 425). With this given Islamic verse and with the above references from Christianity and Hinduism, it is very evident that all religions preach protection for water resources and to worship water. Therefore, the interpretation of all the above references alone would help us to arrive at the conclusion that polluting water bodies would directly be construed as an act violating established religious principles.

These religious duties to protect water bodies and to worship them due to their sacredness are deeply tied to cultural practices in Indian society. Water is often treated as pure and holy, used to cleanse one’s mind and body. Therefore, cultural and religious practices are deeply rooted in and connected with water due to its sacred status, and it should not be polluted at any cost.

CONSTITUTION AND THE RIGHT TO A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT:

Part III of our Constitution, dealing with fundamental rights, provides for the Protection of Life and Personal Liberty, under Article 21, which includes the Right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. Certainly, any violation of the same can be redressed through the writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly ruled that Article 32 is designed for the enforcement of the Fundamental Rights of a citizen by the Apex Court. It provides for an extraordinary procedure to safeguard the Fundamental Rights of a citizen. Right to life is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and it includes the right of enjoyment of pollution-free water and air for the full enjoyment of life. If anything endangers or impairs that quality of life in derogation of laws, a citizen has the right to have recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution for removing the pollution of water or air which may be detrimental to the quality of life.

It is certain to state that if anything impairs or is detrimental to the quality of a citizen’s life, they can avail the Writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court for the violation of their Right to Life. Further, in a PIL, it was held that the right to live in a pollution-free atmosphere is a fundamental right of every citizen, protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prima facie, we are of the view that no religion encourages any activity which creates pollution. The use of firecrackers also affects the fundamental right to health of the citizens, apart from creating noise pollution. Though the case was decided on the issue of noise and air pollution arising out of bursting firecrackers, it strongly pointed out that the Right to live in a pollution-free atmosphere is a fundamental right of every citizen under Article 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court also pointed out that no one can pollute the atmosphere in the name of religion.

DPSP, FUNDAMENTAL DUTIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION:

Part IV of the Constitution of India, dealing with Directive Principles of State Policy, imposes a duty upon the State to raise the level of nutrition, standard of living, public health and prohibition of intoxicating substances except for medicinal purposes under Article 47. This duty also includes the duty to provide a pollution-free environment for its citizens. Article 48A further directs the State to protect and improve the environment apart from providing safeguards to the forest and wildlife.

Article 51A(g) of the Constitution, which provides for the Fundamental Duties of the Citizens, states that it shall be 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.

STATUTORY FRAMEWORK FOR PREVENTION OF WATER POLLUTION:

The Central government has enacted The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for the prevention and control of Water Pollution. The Act’s object says, “An Act to provide for the prevention and control of water pollution and the maintenance or restoration of the wholesomeness of water”. Briefly speaking, this Act was primarily enacted to prevent and control water pollution and to maintain or restore the wholesomeness of water. It establishes the Central Pollution Control Board and State Pollution Control Boards as the principal authorities responsible for preventing and controlling water pollution. It also assigns functions to these boards, such as monitoring water pollution, conducting inspections and taking samples, regulating discharges, undertaking measures for the prevention and control of pollution, and taking enforcement action against violations.

Among the various provisions inscribed into the statute, Section 24 stands directly relevant to our case. The Relevant portion of the said section reads as follows:

24. Prohibition on use of stream or well for disposal of polluting matter, etc.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section,—

1. No person shall knowingly cause or permit any poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter determined in accordance with such standards as may be laid down by the State Board to enter (whether directly or indirectly) into any 3 [stream or well or sewer or on land]; or
2. No person shall knowingly cause or permit to enter into any stream any other matter which may tend, either directly or in combination with similar matters, to impede the proper flow of the water of the stream in a manner leading or likely to lead to a substantial aggravation of pollution due to other causes or of its consequences

Section 24 of the Act clearly prohibits the disposal of poisonous, noxious, or polluting matter into a stream or well. A person shall not knowingly cause or permit such matter to enter a stream or well, whether directly or indirectly. The violation of this Section 24 would attract imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year and six months but which may extend to six years, and with a fine.

Further, Section 279 BNS also contains a provision that awards imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to five thousand rupees or both for polluting water reservoirs voluntarily. The erstwhile IPC contained a similar provision in Section 277.

JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON RELIGIOUS PRACTICES CAUSING WATER POLLUTION:

Polluting rivers or any water streams knowingly, in the name of cultural practices, directly falls under these sections. In the case of Manoj Mishra Vs. Union of India and Ors, the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi, has issued directions for the prohibition on throwing pooja materials or any other material like food grain, oil, etc., into the Yamuna River except at the designated site and directed for payment of compensation amount in cases of violation based on the “Polluter Pays” Principle. The Hon’ble Madras High Court’s recent judgment would also shed light on this issue.

In the case of Sivanupandian v. The District Collector (2026), the Hon’ble Madras High Court had banned the dumping of clothes and other used materials of the deceased by the people in the Tamirabharani River and exempted the immersion of ashes of the deceased. The background of this case and the observations made by the Hon’ble Madras Court in this judgment would provide a clearer lens to view the subject.

The matter came before the court through one environment activist. The issue was that the River named “Tamirabarani” in Tirunelveli District of Tamil Nadu State is being polluted hugely during the festival seasons in the name of Culture and religion. The local people had started to dump solid wastes such as shirts, glasses, broomsticks, etc., into the riverbank while paying homage to their ancestors or the deceased on the riverbank. People, while paying homage to their ancestors or while immersing the ashes of the deceased, had also started to leave the deceased’s belongings, such as their used clothes and other things. This had started to cause pollution in the water due to the chemical substances and endangered the marine life of aquatic species. It was brought to the notice of the Court that more than 121 tonnes of the dumped waste were recovered from that river. Tamirabarani is one of the resourceful and living rivers in Tamil Nadu state. The court in its judgment had balanced the Right to enjoy unpolluted water under Article 21 and the freedom to practice religion under Article 25. A few observations from the judgment of the court on balancing the above-said rights:

“Believers can do what is spiritually beneficial to them, provided it has no adverse implications for ecology and does not violate the rights of other members of society.”

“Article 25 of the Constitution makes the freedom to practice religion subservient to public health. Tamirabarani has been a perennial river catering to the drinking water needs of crores of people. It cannot be allowed to be polluted.”

Apart from the environmental perspective, the court has approached this case from a different view. The court has conferred a juristic personality on this river due to its historic significance. The Tamirabarani River seems to have been worshipped as a deity in the Hindu religion from ancient times.

“We, therefore, make it clear that we recognise the personhood of Tamirabarani not because it is a river but because she is a deity. No one has the right to pollute her. That will not only be a breach of the statutory provisions found in various environmental laws and a breach of the fundamental rights of fellow citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, but also the rights of the River Herself. She is hereby recognised for her own intrinsic value.”

One such factor that would usually be contended to be violated is the Right to Freedom of Religion under Article 25 of the Constitution. The court has answered that too in this case.

“The conferral of juristic personality is a legal innovation applied by courts in situations where the existing law of the day has certain shortcomings or such conferral increases the convenience of adjudication. It is a fact that the Tamirabarani has been heavily polluted. The rituals practised by Hindus are also a contributory factor. They invoke Article 25 of the Constitution to resist the move to ban the dumping of clothes. Reminding the objectors of their own faith and belief lightens the task of adjudication. The objectors have no answer when we ask if they are entitled to desecrate their own Devi.”

Therefore, the observation certainly clarifies that the right to freedom of religion is limited to the extent of a particular limit. As provided in Article 25 itself, it is subject to public health.

It is also to be noted that the Court, in its interim order for this case, mentioned Section 36 of the

Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, which prohibits pollution of watercourses. Similarly, Section 340 of the Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, also provides for the Prohibition on Pollution of Watercourses.

Another type of issue is idol immersion on festive occasions. Particularly, the Courts have always struck down and gone against the immersion of idols made out of Plaster of Paris (PoP) material due to its toxic contents, which would ultimately affect river bodies and aquatic species. One such case is Janhit Manch v. State of Maharashtra (2008), where the petition was a Public Interest Litigation concerning natural water bodies and environmental pollution, particularly a ban on the immersion of idols, ashes, etc., in natural streams. The Bombay High Court noted that the pollution caused by idol immersion was not disputed by the Union Government, and the pollution of water bodies must be controlled.

Regarding idol immersion and other activities, the Court expected the Central and State governments to consider appropriate guidelines expeditiously, warning that continued pollution could be dangerous to the environment in the long run.

CONCLUSION:

The principles discussed in this article, that the religious practices cannot justify pollution of water bodies and that the freedom to practice religion is subject to considerations of public health and environmental protection, have significance beyond the Tamirabharani River in Tirunelveli District. The decision in the Sivanupandian case highlights the need to examine how cultural and religious practices are carried out when they have an adverse impact on the environment. Similar concerns can be seen in other parts of Tamil Nadu, where ritual materials, offerings and other waste continue to find their way into water bodies. Cumuli Waterfalls is one such area where concerns have been raised regarding the disposal of ritual materials and other waste into the water. If such practices continue without proper regulation, they may adversely affect the quality of the water and the aquatic ecosystem. The solution, however, should not be limited to imposing restrictions after environmental damage has already occurred. There is a need for timely action by the State authorities, Pollution Control Boards and courts to prevent such practices from causing further harm. Providing designated places for immersion and disposal of ritual materials, creating awareness among local communities, encouraging environmentally friendly alternatives and ensuring effective enforcement can help maintain a balance between religious practices and environmental protection. Ultimately, protecting a river or water body does not require abandoning religious traditions. Rather, it requires adapting those traditions in a manner that respects both religious sentiments and ecological responsibilities. The principle emerging from the Hon’ble Madras High Court’s ruling in the said case is therefore broader than the protection of one river. The exercise of religious freedom must co-exist with the responsibility to protect the environment and the rights of present and future generations.

REFERENCES:

1. The Constitution of India, 1950, arts. 21, 25, 32, 48A & 51A(g).
2. The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974, Act No. 6 of 1974, § 24.
3. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
4. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 13029 of 1985, Supreme Court of India.
5. Manoj Misra v. Union of India, O.A. No. 6 of 2012, National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
6. Sivanupandian v. The District Collector, W.P. (MD) No. 18560 of 2026, Madras High Court.
7. Janhit Manch v. State of Maharashtra, PIL W.P. No. 13325 of 2003, Bombay High Court.
8. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, § 277.
9. The Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939, § 36.
10. The Jharkhand Municipal Act, 2011, § 340.