SC directs govts to follow ‘broad’ definition of forests: How they are defined, what law says on conservation

SC directs govts to follow ‘broad’ definition of forests: How they are defined, what law says on conservation

Context- The Supreme Court of India, led by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, has ordered governments to adhere to the comprehensive definition of a forest from the 1996 T N Godavarman case. This order is to be followed until a unified record of all forest types in the country is compiled. The directive was issued in response to petitions challenging the 2023 amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The petitioners argued that these amendments significantly weakened the definition of a forest and narrowed the scope of the Act.

Why was the Forest (Conservation) Act amended in 2023?

• The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, passed by both Houses of Parliament in mid-2023, expanded the applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) based on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the T N Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India case (December 12, 1996).
• Following this judgment, the Act’s provisions were applied to recorded forests already used for non-forestry purposes, limiting authorities from changing land use or allowing any development or utility-related work.
• Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav stated that the amendments were necessary to eliminate ambiguities created by the judgment, which had extended the FCA’s applicability to all areas resembling the dictionary definition of ‘forest’.
• To address this, the amendment restricted the FCA’s applicability to only notified forests and lands identified as ‘forest’ in government records.

How exactly did the Supreme Court define ‘forest’ for the purposes of the Act?

• The court has ruled that the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) applies to all lands that are either officially recorded as ‘forest’ or that fit the dictionary definition of a forest.
• This ruling was based on the 1996 judgment by Justice J S Verma and Justice B N Kirpal, which stated that the term ‘forest’ should be understood in its dictionary sense. This includes all legally recognized forests, regardless of their designation (reserved, protected, etc.), and any area recorded as a forest in government records, regardless of ownership.
• The Chief Justice of India-led three-judge Bench reaffirmed this principle, stating that the court adopted the dictionary meaning of forests to align with the Parliament’s intent when legislating the FCA in 1980.

To what extent did the SC’s 1996 judgment really expand the ambit of the FCA, 1980?

• The 2023 amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) was intended to rectify the perceived broadening of the Act’s applicability by the Supreme Court.
• However, the FCA’s scope, as outlined in sub-sections ii, iii, and iv of Section 2, is not limited to “reserved forests” alone; it prohibits unauthorized non-forest use of any forest land.
• In the FCA, the term “reserved forest” is used solely in the context of de-reservation. Section 2(i) states that no reserved forest “shall cease to be reserved” without central government approval. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Narinder Singh & Ors vs Divesh Bhutani & Ors in July 2022.
• The court ruled that since clause (i) specifically refers to a reserved forest, clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) must apply to any other forest. Therefore, the term ‘forest’ as understood in its dictionary sense is covered by Section 2 of the FCA.
• Despite the Ministry’s repeated denials of any attempt to dilute the FCA, it did drop a significant proposed amendment to strengthen the Act, which was mentioned in a Consultation Paper in October 2021.
• The Ministry had considered introducing a provision in the Act to preserve certain pristine forests with rich ecological values for a specific period. This was due to the lack of provisions in the Act to prohibit non-forestry use of areas requiring higher protection due to their uniqueness and high landscape integrated value.
• However, this potentially landmark pro-conservation measure was not included in The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023.

What about the argument that following the T N Godavarman judgment, the FCA was impeding the government’s welfare agenda?

• The 2023 amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) were justified by the government as a means to meet the development needs of forest-dwelling tribes. Minister Yadav stated in Parliament that the FCA obstructs even the construction of toilets in schools for tribal girls.
• However, the basic development needs of tribal communities are already addressed under Section 3 of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. This section mandates the central government to divert forest land for certain government-managed facilities, regardless of the provisions of the FCA.
• Therefore, an amendment to the FCA would not have been necessary solely for the construction of these facilities, which include schools, dispensaries/hospitals, anganwadis, ration shops, power/phone lines, tanks, water pipelines, minor irrigation canals, vocational training centres, roads, community centres, etc.

Who challenged the 2023 amendments to the law, and on what grounds?

• The challenge to the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) amendments was filed by a group of retired Indian Forest Service officers and NGOs, including Vanashakti and Goa Foundation. The petitions reflected concerns raised by dissenting members of the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) that had reviewed the amendments.
• The primary concern was the potential exclusion of 28% of India’s forests, which are outside Recorded Forest Areas, from the FCA’s scope.
• The Ministry assured the JPC that the amended FCA would still apply to all unclassified forests, forests proposed to be notified, land recorded as forest by local bodies, and forest-like areas identified by expert committees set up following the 1996 Supreme Court order. This stance was reiterated before the Supreme Court in the current case.
• The petitioners argued that, pending the finalisation of the consolidated record of forests (required to be completed within one year under the amended 2023 Rules), land parcels that would have been considered forests under the 1996 judgment could now be used for non-forest purposes without requiring FCA clearance.
• In response, the Supreme Court explicitly instructed that its 1996 definition be followed until the consolidated record of forests is finalised.

What happens now?

• States and Union Territories have a deadline of March 31 to submit comprehensive records of forests identified by the expert committees, as per the 1996 judgment. The Ministry is required to publish this data on its website by April 15.
• The Supreme Court stated that while the expert committees established under the 2023 Rules should consider the progress made by previous panels, they have the freedom to extend protection to any forest land deemed worth protecting. The case is scheduled for final disposal in July.

Conclusion- The amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) in 2023 have sparked significant debate. The Supreme Court of India has ordered that the comprehensive definition of a forest, as outlined in the 1996 T N Godavarman case, be adhered to until a unified record of all forest types in the country is compiled.

The court’s ruling ensures that the protection of India’s forests remains robust and comprehensive, pending the finalization of the consolidated record of forests. The case is scheduled for final disposal in July, marking a crucial juncture in India’s environmental legislation.