In litigations concerning the protection of ecosystems, Indian judicial decisions appear to be shifting from anthropocentrism to eco-centrism. This essay argues that though the Courts seem to have a greater appreciation of eco-centrism, anthropocentrism runs deep into their seemingly ‘eco-centric’ decisions. It challenges the adequacy of the eco-centric understanding reflected in therein, through a critical reading of Courts’ quintessentially eco-centric judgements. It further argues that if a tangible shift to ecocentrism is desired, the Courts must revisit their understanding of Nature. Feminist posthumanism may serve as an effective lens to accomplish this. Drawing upon Astrida Neimanis’ application of feminist posthumanism, the essay rebuilds the understanding of non-human environment as a vivacious, expansive, and an intrinsically valuable entity with an independent will and agency, subsequently problematizing our anthropocentric hierarchies. Accordingly, the essay suggests, that if feminist posthumanism is injected into judicial decision-making, it could overhaul the deep-rooted anthropocentrism, and prompt a tangible shift towards ecocentrism.