New Delhi, Mar 4: On Tuesday, the Supreme Court instructed all states and Union Territories to establish an expert committee within one month to prepare a comprehensive record of lands, including forest-like areas, unclassed, and community forest lands.
A bench comprising Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih stated that the expert committee must complete the necessary work within six months, in accordance with Rule 16 (1) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023.
The bench highlighted that Rule 16 (1) mandates all state governments and Union Territories to compile a consolidated record of such lands, including those identified by the expert committee as forest-like areas, unclassed forest lands, and community forest lands to which the provisions of the 2023 forest conservation law apply.
This order was issued while hearing a series of petitions challenging the amendments to the 2023 forest conservation law. The bench noted that the completion of the exercise required by Rule 16 (1) could resolve numerous issues.
“Therefore, we direct all states and Union Territories that have yet to establish the expert committee to do so within one month from today,” the bench stated.
It observed that, according to the Centre’s affidavit, certain states have not yet appointed the expert committee.
“This committee shall fulfill the requirements of Rule 16 (1) of the said Rules along with the directives issued by this Court… within a period of six months from today, and submit a report to the Union of India,” it added.
The bench explained that the Centre is to consolidate the state-wise data and present it before the court.
The supreme court registrar (judicial) is tasked with communicating this order to the chief secretaries of all states and administrators of the Union Territories.
The bench clarified that if the directions are not followed meticulously by the states and Union Territories, it would hold the chief secretaries and administrators accountable for the oversight and consider taking appropriate measures.
The matter is scheduled for a hearing in six months.
The bench confirmed that its February 3 directive in this case would remain in effect in the meantime.
“We clarify that until further notice, no actions will be taken by the Union of India or any states that could lead to a reduction of forest land unless compensatory land is provided by either the state government or the Union of India for reforestation,” the court had stated on February 3.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, mentioned that an affidavit has been filed regarding the matter.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, representing one of the petitioners, claimed, “This amendment, which is under challenge here, introduces compensatory afforestation as a principle that they will follow whenever forest land is diverted.” He warned that the complete clearing of forests could severely impact the environment and climate change.
“My plea today is simply this: until this identification process is completed, no actions should be taken that affect the forests,” he added.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing another petitioner, referenced a report concerning the nation’s forest cover.
Justice Gavai noted that a recent news article indicated an increase in the country’s forest cover.
In February of the previous year, the top court acknowledged a submission stating that the definition of a forest under the 2023 amended law on conservation excluded nearly 1.99 lakh square kilometers of forest land from the definition, making it available for other uses.
The court had instructed state governments and Union Territories to furnish details of the forest land within their jurisdiction to the Centre by March 31, 2024.
The top court indicated that the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change would publish all the details regarding “forest-like area, unclassed forest land, and community forest land,” as provided by the states and Union Territories, on its website by April 15 of the previous year.
In its interim order, the bench mandated that states and UTs act in line with the definition of “forest” established by the top court in the 1996 judgment of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India.
The petitioners alleged that the broad definition of a “forest” in the apex court’s ruling was narrowed under Section 1A added in the amended law.
According to the amended law, land must either be designated as a forest or specifically documented as a forest in a government record to be classified as a “forest.”
The Centre argued that the amendments were enacted following the top court’s directives in the judgment.
On March 27, 2023, the Centre presented the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, while the petitions challenged the constitutionality of the amended law, seeking its annulment as void. (Agencies)
