Uphold definition of forests as per 1996 judgement: SC tells states, UTs

This means that for now, States and Union Territories will have to go by the dictionary definition of the word forest to determine whether any work can be approved on any land

The Supreme Court has directed that the states and Union territories (UT) must adhere to the definition of forest as laid down in its 1996 judgement (popularly known as the Godavarman judgement) until they furnish details of all officially recorded forests.

In its interim ruling on Saturday, the Supreme Court suspended the definition of forest outlined in the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 2023. This apex court order means that for now, states and Union territories will have to go by the dictionary definition of the word forest to determine whether any work can be approved on any land.

This directive comes amidst the court’s review of multiple petitions challenging the 2023 amendment to the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) of 1980, which experts and activists claimed diluted the environmental protections for forests. Environmental experts claimed that the amendment led to opening up vast tracts of forest land (including deemed forests and community forests, which are not officially recorded as forests) to human activities.

 

The legal battle

After the amendment became law in August last year, several groups and organisations petitioned the Supreme Court in October 2023 against the law. Among those who filed petitions included a group of retired Indian Forest Service officials and former bureaucrats, and the NGO Vanashakti.

The petitioners claimed that if the definition of forests outlined in the 2023 law is applied instead of the definition established in the Godavarman ruling, approximately 197,159 square kilometers of land with tree cover (which is not officially recognised as part of declared forests in government records) would be excluded from the recorded forest areas (RFA) out of the total 713,000 square kilometers of forests in the country.

They also argued that permitting the establishment of zoos and safaris in such areas, as well as allowing projects of national importance within 100 kilometers of a formal or informal international border, could potentially lead to the degradation of environmental safeguards for forests.

The interim order not only reaffirmed the definition of a forest as stipulated in its 1996 judgment but also made it explicit that forest land cannot be redirected for safaris or zoos without prior approval from the court. It also mandated that all states and Union territories must submit the reports of the expert committees by March 31.

While conservationists welcomed the order as a significant legal ruling that upholds the constitution and core democratic values such as transparency and accountability, they expressed concern over the lack of support from state governments in upholding forest conservation efforts.

Challenge ahead

Experts point out that despite having 27 years to do so, many state governments have yet to identify deemed forests according to the dictionary definition. They emphasise that the effectiveness of the order in protecting forests will depend on the active participation of state governments in fulfilling their role.

“The Supreme Court should also step in to address cases where states have refused to complete the process of identifying deemed forests in accordance with the dictionary definition,” remarked Stalin D, director of the Vanashakti NGO. States like Haryana and Uttarakhand have not yet started the exercise to identify deemed forests as per dictionary meaning.

“The High-Level Committee constituted by Vidhi last year observed that large swathes of forests in India are neither notified nor recorded as forests by States. Many of these are classified under various land uses in government records, such as ‘bane’, ‘pansari’ land in Karnataka; ‘gair mumkin pahaad’ in Haryana; ‘oran, rundh and dev-vans’ in Rajasthan, awaiting a forest-like status by states. They received relief from the Godavarman order 1996 as they qualified to be forests as per the Supreme Court definition, thereby bringing them under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980,” said Debadityo Sinha, lead for Climate & Ecosystems at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

In addition to providing comprehensive records of forests identified by expert committees established according to the 1996 judgment by March 31, the ministry will also have to publish this data on its website by April 15. The case is slated for final disposal in J