New Delhi: As per a 1996 judgment by the Supreme Court, states were to form expert committees to identify forests that satisfy the dictionary meaning of the term even if those tracts were not officially recorded as forests (for instance, deemed forests such as the Aravalli hill range in Haryana, are not officially recognised as forests).
A 2011 judgment, also by the apex court, stressed that the 1996 judgment be followed and states prepare “geo-referenced district forest-maps” to document all forests under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.
Both these judgments have not been followed: the Union government has no record of reports by state expert committees, and no documentation of geo-referenced forest plots, according to RTI responses received by a conservationist, reported Hindustan Times on February 21. This is also contrary to the environment ministry’s claims – that deemed forests identified by states have been recorded – in its response to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill 2023 submitted in the Lok Sabha in July last year, per the news report.
Two judgments to identify, document unrecognised forests
The Forest Conservation Act of 1980 provides for the conservation of forests in the country in several ways, including restricting diversion of forest land for projects unless cleared by a Forest Advisory Committee. In March 2023, however, the Union environment ministry sought to amend this Act. The amendment made several changes, including in the name of the Act – it is now called the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 2023. However, experts across various fields raised numerous concerns about the Amendment, including the fact that it would narrow the definition of forests as laid down by a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court in 1996, and thereby exempt a lot of forest land – such as deemed forests and community forests – from legal protection.
As per the 1996 judgment (also called the Godavarman order), lands that satisfy the dictionary meaning of a forest should also be recognised as forests, and be brought under the protection of the Forest Conservation Act of 1980. The court ordered that states should form State Expert Committees or SECs to put together state-wise reports on all such lands identified as forests. This report was to then be shared with the Union environment ministry.
A 2011 judgment (called the Lafarge order), also by the apex court, stressed that the 1996 judgment be followed and states also prepare “geo-referenced district forest-maps” containing the details of the location and boundary of each plot of land that may be defined as “forest” (such as deemed forests, which are officially not recognised as forests, but would be if both these orders were followed). It also specified that a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based decision support database containing these district-wise details of each plot of land be created and regularly updated.
However, more than a decade later, the environment ministry does not yet have the reports prepared by SECs which identified deemed forests in every state as per the 1996 order, according to information received under a Right to Information (RTI) application.
‘False assurances’ by the environment ministry?
The ministry gave this information to Prakriti Srivastava, former Indian Forest Service officer (former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Kerala) and a co-petitioner of one of the many petitions heard by the Supreme Court against the amendment to the old Forest Conservation Act, in a series of responses to her queries under the RTI Act.
The environment ministry told Srivastava on January 25 this year that the “requisite information is not available in the Forest Conservation division of the Ministry”. It transferred her query to the PCCFs of all states to provide her with replies, reported Hindustan Times.
On January 20 this year, Srivastava had also sought details of all geo-referenced district forest maps with the Ministry as per the 2011 Lafarge order, the latest GIS maps for all States and Union Territories containing the location details of the plots of land that may be defined as a forest, and whether a GIS-based decision support database was created as directed by the SC, and if so, a link to that. However, the weblink the ministry gave did not provide geo-referenced maps of these forests, Srivastava told Hindustan Times.
This, per the news report, is contrary to what the ministry said in its report to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Forest Conservation Amendment bill 2023 submitted in the Lok Sabha last year, as part of the steps that are required to make an amendment a law.
Per the news report, the ministry stated that “deemed forests as identified by expert committees of the states, have been taken on record and hence the provision of the Act will be applicable in such lands also…” – giving the impression to several environmental groups that the data was already available with the union environment ministry, per the HT report.
This is “shocking” and “horrifying” that the ministry has made such “false assurances”, Srivastava told HT.
On February 19, the Supreme Court had passed an interim order after hearing several petitions by groups and organisations against the changes to the old Forest Conservation Act that effectively dilute its power to conserve forests. Apart from instructing states and UTs to uphold the definition of forests as per its dictionary meaning in identifying lands that are forested but not recognised legally as forests, the SC in its interim order also directed that the SEC reports by submitted to the Ministry by March 31 this year, and that the environment ministry maintain these records, digitise it and make it available on its official website by April 15, 2024.
