Subscribe Now! Get features like
New Delhi
The Supreme Court on Monday issued an interim order that has effectively suspended what experts and activists said were dilution of environmental protections for forests in a law enacted by the government last year, the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 2023.
The court ordered that for now, states and Union territories need to go by the dictionary definition of the word forest to determine whether any work can be approved on any land, asked the Union government to seek details about what lands have been identified as forests in the lexical sense (in keeping with a 1996 ruling), and that no zoos or safaris can be set up in such areas unless the court’s approval has been secured.
Broadly, the law, previously, known as the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, was criticised over two issues. First, it contained provisions that in effect undid a 1996 Supreme Court ruling, known as the TN Godavarman ruling which expanded the definition of forests to beyond those notified or recorded officially.
That order also directed states to form committees to review what could be classified as forests under the dictionary definition, but there was no compliance of it even after 27 years.
Then came the changes last year, which, according to petitioners who challenged the law, if allowed to operate, would result in declassification of over 197,000 square kilometres of forests currently protected under the 1996 definition.
The second issue that petitioners flagged had to do with a raft of relaxations of conditions in which non-forest activity can be carried out on forest land. This included setting up zoos and safaris in such areas, and allowing projects of national importance within 100km of a formal or informal international border.
On the zoos, the court said sates and union territories will need its approval. “We issue an interim order to the effect that any proposal for setting up a zoo or safari referred to in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, owned by government or any authority in forest area other than protected areas, shall not be finally approved save and except the final approval of this Court,” held the bench of Chief Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.
The bench directed the Union government to issue a circular to all states and union territories directing them to comply with the 1996 ruling, which sought reports on identified forest land as per the Godavarman ruling, within two weeks. The states and UTs have been given time till March 31 to do so. Once the reports are received, the Centre was directed to digitise the records and publish it on the website of the environment ministry no later than April 15.
The Union ministry of environment and forests did not respond to requests for a comment on the order.
It is not clear how many states will be able to do this; HT learns that some are yet to classify forests in accordance with the 1996 ruling.
Monday’s interim order was passed in a batch of petitions filed by a group of retired Indian Forest Service officials and former bureaucrats, and the NGO Vanashakti. The court matter was adjourned till July. The petitioners were represented by senior advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen and advocate Prashant Bhushan.
The counsels referred to the India State of Forests Report of the Forest Survey of India (FSI) and said that out of the total of 713,000 sq km of forests in the country, an area of 197,159 sq km with tree cover (not forming part of declared forests in government records) would stand excluded from the recorded forest areas (RFA), if the 2023 law’s definition is taken into account, as compared to the definition in Godavarman ruling.
Sen also submitted that as per the 1996 decision, all states and UTs were directed to constitute an expert committee to identify forests based on the Court’s ruling at the time. “We have applied under Right to Information Act to get access to these reports and we have not been supplied with any,” Sen submitted.
Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, informed the Court that some states have given their state expert committee (SEC) reports. “The Centre will require hand-holding from the Court to get this information from states as ultimately the Centre wants to digitise this information,” Bhati added.
The court also held that the committees are free to expand the definition of the word forests, notwithstanding the definition of the new law. “The states and UTs shall bear in mind that under Rule 16 (of the 2023 Adhiniyam) the work to be undertaken by the expert committee shall not preclude it from expanding the ambit of forest land,” the bench ruled.
Experts welcomed the intervention of the court but indicated there lies a complicated road ahead. “States like Haryana and Uttarakhand that have not yet started the exercise to identify deemed forests as per dictionary meaning, should do so urgently, to comply with the Godavarman judgement, even if after 27 long years,” said Chetan Agarwal, Gurugram based forest expert.
A second expert said classification of forest lands according to the 1996 yardstick will be a crucial process to watch. “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, etc, awaiting a forest-like status by states. They got a breather from the Godavarman order 1996 as they qualified to be forests as per the Supreme Court definition bringing them under the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980,” said Debadityo Sinha, lead, Climate & Ecosystems, Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy
Sinha also welcomed the preconditions the court put on setting up zoos and safaris. “Establishments like zoos and safaris involve large infrastructure, including large enclosures for captive animals, roads, electricity lines, restaurants, shops, parking facilities, open-air theatres, gardens, interpretation centres, veterinary hospitals, etc. Such large-scale townships should not come at the cost of natural forests and local wildlife… Exempting such activities from expert review was opening floodgates for the commercialisation of forests, neglecting the ecosystem and biodiversity value of the forests,” Sinha added.
Another expert remarked at the discrepancy between what data the government seemed to have, based on its disclosures at different forums. “This is an amazing order because SC has said that all state expert committee reports on forests identifying all categories of forests, including unclassed forests as per the Godavarman judgement, are to be compiled by the MoEFCC within two weeks and georeferenced as per the 2011 Lafarge order in the 202/ 96 Godavarman case…” said Prakriti Srivastava, retired IFS.
“When I sought these reports under RTI, I was told the information is not available with the ministry. This is shocking when the ministry has stated before the Joint Parliamentary Committee that the SEC reports have been taken on record and the amended act will be applicable to the land also. It is really horrifying that the ministry has made such false assurances that have resulted in changing the conservation regime of the country through the amended act without even examining the state expert committee reports! Considering the few poor quality SEC reports that have been seen by us, it is to be seen what the next steps of the ministry will be in pursuance to the SC order of today,” Srivastava added.
“The forest governance juggernaut appears to be replaying through positions taken by two centralised judicial and executive institutions. While the judicial challenge to the legislative amendments was expected both on procedural questions and the implications of the amendments, it does raise larger concerns around forest and democratic decision making. It will be important for institutions reviewing and responding to this legal challenge to widen and decentralize the discussion from the outset, lest the conversation once again remains removed from place based conflicts and expertise of forest dependent communities,” said Kanchi Kohli, independent policy and legal expert.
Go by dictionary definition of forest as per ’96 judgment: SC – Hindustan Times
Leave a comment