States/UTs Must Follow Definition Of 'Forest' Given By Godavarman Judgment Till Forests Are Identified As Per 2023 Rules : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 19) passed an interim order directing that States and Union Territories must act as per the definition of "forest" laid down in the 1996 judgment in T.N Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India while the process of identifying land recorded as forests in Government records is going on as per the 2023 amendment to Forest (Conservation) Act.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud passed the interim order while hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the 2023 amendments to the Forest Conservation Act.

The petitioners contended that the expansive definition of 'forest' given in the Godavarman judgment has been narrowed by Section 1A inserted by the 2023 amendment, according to which a land has to be either notified as a forest or specifically recorded as a forest in a government record to qualify as a "forest". Whereas, as per the Godavarman judgment, 'forest' has to be understood in terms of its dictionary meaning.

The petitioners also pointed out that as per Rule 16 of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations, within a period of one year from the notification of the 2023 amendment, shall prepare a consolidated record of forest lands. Since this process is yet to be completed, the petitioners raised the apprehension of  lands - which are 'forests' as per the Godavarman judgment- getting diverted for non-forest use in the meantime.

The Court was told that the narrowing of the definition would leave out nearly 1.99 lakh square kilometers of forest land from the ambit of 'forest'.

Taking note of these concerns, the bench comprising CJI, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, passed the following order :

"Pending the completion of exercise by the administration of the State Governments and Union Territories, under Rule 16, the principles which are elucidated in the judgment of this court in TN Godavarman must be continued to be observed. As a matter of fact, it is evident that Rule 16 includes within its ambit forest-like areas to be identified by the expert committee, unclassed forest lands and community forest lands. In the interregnum therefore, while being guided by the provisions of the statute and those contained in Rule 16, the State Governments and UT administrations shall peremptorily ensure compliance with the ambit of expression "forest" as explained in the decision in TN Godarman."

The Court directed the Union of India, through the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, to issue a circular to all States/UTs in terms of the above order.

The Court further directed the Union of India shall, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of this order, require all States/UTs to provide to it a comprehensive record of land which has been identified as forests by the expert committees constituted by the States/UTs as per the TN Godavarman judgment. All states and UTs must comply with the directions by forwarding the reports of the expert committees by March 31, 2024. These records shall be maintained by the MoEFF and shall be duly digitised and made available on the official website by April 15, 2024.

The Expert Committees which are constituted as per Rule 16 of the 2023 Rules shall duly bear in mind the work carried out by the previous expert committees formed as per the Godavarman judgment. However, the Court clarified that the expert committees formed as per the 2023 rules will be at  liberty to expand the ambit of forest lands which are worthy of protection.

No Zoos/Safaris to be notified in forests lands without prior approval

The Court issued a further direction to the effect that  "any proposal for the establishment of zoo/safaris referred to in the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 owned by Govt or any authority in forest areas other than protected areas shall not be finally approved save and except with the prior permission of this Court."

"Where any such proposal is sought to be implemented, this Court shall be moved by the Union Government or as the case may be by the competent authority for the prior approval of the Court," the Court added.

This was after the petitioners raised apprehension about Section 5 of the 2023 Amendment Act as per which zoo and safaris referred to in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, owned by the Government or any authority, in forest areas other than protected areas, are excluded from the definition of 'forests'. Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen, appearing for some of the petitioners, referred to the zoo-safari project announced by the Haryana Government in the ecologically sensitive Aravalli region, and said that as per the new definition, this area will not be having the protection of 'forest area'.

The Court listed the petitions for final disposal in the month of July 2024.

One petition was filed by a group of retired Indian Forest Service officers, who raised concerns about the 2023 amendments. NGOs such as Vanashakti, Goa Foundation were also among the petitioners.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Union Government, submitted that the amendments were passed in furtherance of the directions in the Godavarman judgment to protect the forests as per the dictionary meaning. 

On November 23, 2023, the Centre had given an undertaking before the Court that no precipitative steps would be taken in respect of the forest, as understood in accordance with the dictionary sense.

Senior Advocate PC Sen appeared in the petition filed by retired IFS officials. Advocate Prashant Bhushan made submissions on behalf of the Goa Foundation.

Case Details : Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1164 of 2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 170