Article Abstract 2

ract The global Rights of Nature movement has gained significant momentum, with jurisdictions such as Ecuador and New Zealand, as countries, which formally recognising nature as a legal subject possessing enforceable rights. In India, the Uttarakhand High Court\'s 2017 declaration granting legal personhood to the rivers Ganga and Yamuna appeared to signal a transformative shift toward an ecocentric jurisprudence. However, the Supreme Court stayed this order within months, exposing the fragile institutional foundations upon which such declarations rest. Existing scholarship has largely focused on judicial activism and environmental governance, while insufficient attention has been paid to the structural incompatibility between India\'s environmental adjudicatory framework and Rights of Nature jurisprudence. This paper addresses that gap by arguing that the failure of ecocentric jurisprudence in India is not merely judicial but structurally integrated within the NGT Act, 2010. Specifically, Section 20, by mandating the polluter-pays principle and sustainable development, transforms ecological injury into compensable damage rather than recognising nature as an autonomous, rights-bearing entity. Furthermore, the NGT has systematically deployed the Doctrine of Proportionality to override the Precautionary Principle in infrastructure-sensitive cases, as evidenced by the Char Dham Highway Project and Great Nicobar Island Development Plan. Through doctrinal analysis of statutory provisions, NGT orders, and Supreme Court judgments, supplemented by comparative reference to Ecuador and New Zealand, this paper demonstrates that Rights of Nature in India remains aspirationally acknowledged but operationally impossible. The paper characterises India\'s ecocentric turn as an \"ecocentric illusion\" and concludes with recommendations for legislative reform and an independent guardianship mechanism.
Keywords: Rights of Nature, Ecocentric Jurisprudence, National Green Tribunal, Section 20 NGT Act, Precautionary Principle, Proportionality Doctrine, Legal Personhood