This case analysis examines Sivanupandian v. District Collector, Tirunelveli, an order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court concerning pollution of the river Tamirabarani. The pollution arose from a widespread local practice of disposing of the clothes and ash of deceased relatives at the river’s bathing ghats. What began as a petition relating to an encroachment eviction developed into a broader inquiry into the protection of the river, with the Court invoking the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and the Tamil Nadu Public Health Act, 1939 to restrain the pollution. The significance of this order lies in the Court’s method of reasoning. Rather than declaring the river a legal person purely as a natural resource, an approach the Supreme Court had earlier stayed in Mohd. Salim v. State of Uttarakhand, the Madras High Court adopted a different route. It recognised the Tamirabarani as a deity worshipped by local communities, applying the established principle that Hindu idols and deities may hold legal rights. This enabled the Court to balance the right to religious practice under Article 25 with the right to a clean environment under Article 21 and the duty to protect nature under Article 51A(g), without addressing the wider, unresolved question of whether rivers as such can be recognised as legal persons. This case analysis examines the factual background, legal issues, the Court’s reasoning on each issue, and the ratio decidendi of the order. It further evaluates the significance of the decision as a distinct, faith-based approach to environmental personhood. The analysis considers whether this approach can provide Indian courts with a practical framework beyond the traditional anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches in future litigation concerning the protection of rivers.