Subscribe Now! Get features like
New Delhi The Supreme Court on Thursday refrained from staying amendments to the Forest Conservation Act that come into effect from December 1, after the Union government assured it that no “precipitate action” will be taken till guidelines are framed to provide for exemptions from the definition of forest under the new law.
The court was hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by 13 retired public servants who had challenged the constitutional validity of the amendments claiming it to be a “death knell” on India’s forests. The petitioners moved a stay application on the grounds that the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023 restricts the expansive scope of forests laid down by the Supreme Court in a landmark ruling in TN Godavarman case delivered on December 12, 1996.
A bench of justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha took up the concerns of the petitioners represented by senior advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen and asked additional solicitor general (ASG) Balbir Singh whether the apprehensions of the petitioners was true.
The court noted that the 1996 ruling defined “forest land” under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 to mean three categories of land — land notified as forest under any law, land recorded as forests in government records, and forests as understood in the dictionary meaning of the word.
“The amendments do not seek to dilute the definition of forests as laid down by the 1996 Godavarman judgment,” ASG Singh claimed. He added that any exemption from the definition of forest cover under the amended law will be as per guidelines which are in the process of being framed.
The court said, “If you are saying you are not diluting the definition of forest as under the 1996 judgment, we will record your statement. We will hear this petition after six weeks as it has serious implications.”
In a short order, the court said, “To address concerns of the petitioners, ASG Singh makes a statement that no precipitate action will be taken by the Union government in terms of the definition of forests, as understood by the TN Godavarman judgment.” The bench allowed the Centre to file a detailed response to the petition in four weeks and kept the matter for hearing after six weeks.
The amendment covers only land that was declared or notified as a forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 or under any other law. It also seeks to recognise only forest lands that were recorded as forests as on or after October 25, 1980 (when the forest conservation law came into effect). This could leave out large swathes of land that are managed as forests by states but aren’t recognised as such. The new law also exempts strategic national security projects on land situated within 100km of international borders, Line of Control and Line of Actual Control, from environmental clearances. This, experts fear, could endanger sensitive ecosystems in the Northeast, where entire states could fall under the 100km exemption. The act also exempts zoos and eco-safaris from green norms
Sen argued that the 1996 judgment directed states to constitute State Expert Committees (SEC) to identify and demarcate forest cover that were to be protected under the 1980 Act. He said, “It is unclear whether such SECs exist in each state. The reports of the SECs are not available in the public domain and the same are not accessible under the Right to Information Act. Once the amendments get notified, states can do what they like.”
Under the changes brought by the Centre and cleared by Parliament in August this year, forest land up to 10 hectares is exempt from scrutiny under the Act if it is being proposed to be used for construction of “security-related infrastructure” with there being no clarity on what it would include. “These kinds of exemptions will sound the death knell of forests in India,” the petition stated.
The bench, while examining this aspect on Thursday said, “Do you think national security can be compromised, particularly when any construction relates to question of national security? The guidelines can take care of it.”
The petition also questioned exemption to activities such as safaris, zoos and ecotourism facilities in forests that could disturb the delicate ecological balance of these protected spaces. By permitting commercial activity in forests, the amendments ignore the associated negative impacts on forests and wildlife with the creation of permanent structures, access roads, power transmission lines and other supporting infrastructure for such zoos and safaris, the petition added.
The court also issued notice on another petition raising similar challenge that was argued by senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan. He pointed out that the amendments allow construction of projects of national importance and natural security infrastructure in forest lands falling within 100km from international border or line of control. He said that North-East states and Sikkim have objected to such a provision as this would apply to projects in the entire state.
SC refrains from staying forest act changes – Hindustan Times
Leave a comment