The Supreme Court of India, on March 4, took a firm stance against States and Union Territories (UTs) that have failed to comply with its directive to establish expert committees for the identification of forest areas. The Court emphasized that if the required committees are not formed within one month and do not complete the identification process within six months as per Rule 16(1) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, Chief Secretaries and Administrators of non-compliant states and UTs will be held personally accountable.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih passed the order, stating:
"It is the contention of petitioners that Union/States would be using the land which in fact is forest, but not recorded as forest, for compensatory afforestation... It is submitted that this would reduce forest coverage..."
The Court had previously expressed concerns over states using forest land for linear projects without conducting compensatory afforestation, thereby leading to significant reduction in forest areas.
"We therefore direct all states/UTs in which expert committees have not been constituted, to constitute such committees within 1 month from today. The said committees shall complete the required exercise along with directions of this court within 6 months and submit a report to the Union. The Registrar (Judicial) shall communicate this order to Chief Secretaries of all states in the country and administrators of all UTs."
The Court warned that failure to comply with these directives in "letter and spirit" would result in holding the Chief Secretaries and Administrators personally responsible for lapses, with potential legal consequences.
Read Also:- Time to Address the Misuse of Public Interest Litigations: Justice BV Nagarathna
Background of the Case
The case in question—ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA, INDIAN FOREST SERVICE (RETD) AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR., W.P.(C) No. 1164/2023—originates from concerns regarding amendments to the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 2023. Petitioners challenged these amendments, arguing that they allowed the diversion of forest lands without adequate protection measures.
In February 2024, the Court had directed states and UTs to follow the definition of "forest" established in the landmark TN Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India (1996) judgment while identifying lands recorded as forests under the FCA amendments.
As per this directive, the Union Government was required to ensure that all states and UTs submit comprehensive records of forest lands identified by expert committees by March 31, 2024. The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEF) was tasked with digitizing and publishing these records on its official website by April 15, 2024.
During the hearing, petitioners, including retired Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers, raised concerns over the depletion of forest land due to compensatory afforestation. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan argued:
"The concept of compensatory afforestation being made applicable to jungles and ‘forests’ is a serious issue. When land from the middle of forests (which are contiguous and homogenous) is diverted, the entire forest is effectively destroyed."
The petitioners also pointed out that despite identification directives being in place since 1996, the process remained incomplete. The delay has resulted in large-scale diversion of forest land, exacerbating the environmental crisis.
Read Also:- Karnataka High Court: Imprisonment for Maintenance Arrears Cannot Exceed One Month Per Application
Another crucial argument highlighted the rights of Adivasis and Scheduled Tribes, with Advocate Prashant Bhushan emphasizing that the amendments affected indigenous communities dependent on forests for their livelihoods.
Representing the Union, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati acknowledged compliance issues and stated:
"Problem is ‘recorded forest’ has not kept pace in all states with the 1996 directions."
She informed the Court that 33 states and UTs had adhered to the 1996 directives. However, four states/UTs—West Bengal, Ladakh, Jammu & Kashmir, and Lakshadweep—had not even formed the required expert committees. While acknowledging reorganization challenges in J&K and Ladakh, she stated that efforts were now being made to address the issue.
Regarding compliance with Rule 16(1), she reported that only Sikkim, Gujarat, and Odisha had completed the mandated identification process. She urged the Court to impose time-bound compliance to align with India's forest policy and legal mandates.
"An interim order (in February 2025) has already been passed on compensatory afforestation which says that no steps should be taken which would lead to reduction of forest land."
Final Court Directive
Ultimately, the Supreme Court directed states and UTs to:
- Constitute expert committees within one month.
- Complete the forest identification exercise within six months.
- Submit consolidated reports to the Union Government.
Despite concerns raised by petitioners about unrecorded forest lands being used for compensatory afforestation, the Court noted that such claims were still speculative and difficult to adjudicate without concrete evidence. Nevertheless, the bench reiterated its commitment to ensuring the protection of forest land across India.
