In an interim order on February 19, the Supreme Court said that states and Union Territories must adhere to the definition of forests established in its landmark 1996 judgment until they furnish details of all recorded forests. This directive came during the hearing of numerous petitions challenging the 2023 amendment to the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) of 1980.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra directed state governments and Union Territories to furnish details of forest land within their jurisdiction to the Centre by March 31. The ongoing process of identifying land recorded as forests in government records was noted to be in accordance with the amended law.
The petitioners said that the amended law, particularly Section 1A, had significantly narrowed the wide definition of “forest” established by the top court”s judgment. According to the amendment, land must either be notified or specifically recorded as a forest in government records to qualify as such.
The 1996 Godavarman judgment mandated that any area meeting the dictionary meaning of a forest should be considered as such and protected under the FCA, irrespective of official classification. However, the 2023 amendment introduced by the Union government sought to alter this, potentially exposing vast tracts of forest land to human activities.
Responding to petitions against the amendment, the Supreme Court upheld the 1996 definition of a forest and further stipulated that forest land cannot be diverted for safaris or zoos without prior court approval.
Conservationists lauded this interim order as a “landmark” judgment upholding constitutional principles of democracy, transparency, and accountability.
The Forest Conservation Act of 1980 is a crucial legislation aimed at safeguarding India”s forests, including by limiting their use for non-forest purposes such as infrastructure development and tourism.
In March last year, Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav introduced the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha. Subsequently, a group of retired civil servants filed a petition arguing that the 2023 amendment diluted the definition of a forest established by the apex court.
The Godavarman judgment affirmed that lands meeting the dictionary definition of forests, regardless of official classification, are eligible for protection under the FCA. However, the 2023 amendment restricted this protection to lands officially notified or recorded as forests after October 25, 1980.
Critics argued that such a narrow definition would facilitate the diversion of forested areas like the Aravalli hills in Haryana for tourism purposes.
The Congress welcomed the Supreme Court”s interim order and pledged commitment to forest and environmental protection upon forming an INDIA bloc government.
Former Environment Minister Ramesh praised the Supreme Court”s intervention in staying these actions, emphasizing the importance of upholding the 1996 judgment”s definition of a forest.
“After the electoral bonds scam, the Supreme Court has stopped another set of blatantly illegal and disastrous Modi government schemes. One by one, the scams and frauds of the Modi government are being exposed in India’s highest court of law,” Ramesh wrote on X.
He also criticised the Modi government”s actions, alleging attempts to facilitate environmental degradation for the benefit of corporate interests.
“The Prime Minister wanted to make it easier to hand over India’s forests and pollute the environment, to benefit his corporate crony friends. So first, he changed the rules in 2017 so that projects that had violated their forest clearance could be legalized. Over 100 projects of big corporates including coal mines, factories, and cement plants, were allowed to brazenly start work in violation of environmental clearances,” he added.
Ramesh highlighted instances of projects violating environmental clearances being retrospectively approved, as well as the 2023 amendment stripping protection from significant forest areas.
“In 2023, the Modi government brought the Forest Conservation Amendment, which stripped protections from 2 lakh square km of forest. This was in complete violation of a 1996 Supreme Court judgement. This Amendment would have made it easy to divert “deemed forests,” as well as forests in the North East. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has stayed both of these illegal moves. It has stayed the illegal permissions given to projects violating their environmental clearance,” the Congress leader said.
