Background & Issue
- The Supreme Court (SC) reaffirmed that no forest land should be reduced for linear projects unless compensatory afforestation is ensured.
- The case pertains to petitions challenging the 2023 amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
- The amendments allegedly diluted the definition of ‘forest’, restricting it to declared forests and post-1980 government-recorded forests.
Relevance : GS 3(Environment)
SC’s Observations & Directives
- No Reduction of Forest Land: SC explicitly stated that the government and states cannot use forest land for linear projects unless an equivalent area is afforested.
- Definition of ‘Forest’: Reiterated that the term ‘forest’ should retain its broad meaning, covering all undeclared forest land (~1.97 lakh sq. km).
- Reference to Godavarman Case (1996): SC upheld the dictionary meaning of ‘forest’, which includes all lands exhibiting forest characteristics, regardless of ownership or classification.
- Clarification on Government’s Stance: The Centre claimed the amendments do not reduce forest cover, arguing that the expanded definition includes lands recognized by states, local bodies, or communities.
- Directive to States & UTs: Ordered the preparation of a consolidated record of all forest lands, including community and unclassified forests, in line with Rule 16 of the MoEFCC’s Nov 29, 2023, notification (to be completed within a year).
Implications & Relevance
- Ecological Protection: Prevents unchecked deforestation that could lead to environmental degradation.
- Legislative Scrutiny: Ensures that the 2023 amendments do not weaken forest conservation measures.
- Federal Accountability: Puts the onus on both the Centre and States to maintain green cover.
- Legal Precedent: Reinforces the 1996 SC ruling on forests, ensuring that legal interpretations favor conservation.
