Supreme Court: No Reduction of Forest Land for Linear Projects

Sub : Env

Sec: Env legislation

Why in News

The Supreme Court has ruled that forest land cannot be reduced for linear projects unless compensatory afforestation land is provided. The verdict came in response to petitions challenging the 2023 amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

Key Points:

The court explicitly stated that forest areas cannot be reduced for infrastructure projects unless an equivalent area is designated for afforestation.
The Supreme Court directed authorities to adhere to the broad dictionary meaning of ‘forest’ as upheld in the 1996 TN Godavarman Thirumulpad case.
The petitions argued that the amendments significantly diluted the definition of forests, potentially reducing overall forest cover.
They pointed out that the new definition excluded vast tracts of land previously recognized as forests, especially those not officially recorded in government documents.
The Union government refuted claims that the amendments aimed to reduce forest cover. It highlighted an explanation in Section 1A that expanded ‘government records’ to include:
- Lands recognized as forests by State or Union Territory authorities
- Forests acknowledged by local bodies, councils, or recognized communities.

About Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980:

The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, was enacted by the Government of India to regulate deforestation and conserve forests.
It provides a legal framework for restricting the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes while ensuring ecological balance.
Restrictions on Forest Land Use: No forest land can be diverted for non-forest purposes (such as agriculture, industry, or infrastructure) without prior approval from the Central Government.
The Central Government has the power to approve or reject proposals for forest land diversion.
The Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) is responsible for implementing the Act.
If forest land is diverted, an equivalent area of non-forest land must be afforested.
If non-forest land is unavailable, degraded forest land must be afforested.
The Act mandates the formation of an Advisory Committee to evaluate forest clearance proposals.
Any violation of the Act, such as unauthorized use of forest land, can result in legal action and penalties.

Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023:

Redefined ‘Forest’: The amendment introduced Section 1A, limiting the definition of ‘forest’ to declared forests and those recorded in government records after 1980.
Exempted strategic, security, and public utility projects in border areas (100 km from international borders) from requiring prior approval.
Allowed forest land use for eco-tourism, linear projects (like roads, railways), and other activities under specific conditions.

Types of forest:

Reserved Forests: Reserve forests are the most restricted forests and are constituted by the State Government on any forest land or wasteland which is the property of the Government.
In reserved forests, local people are prohibited, unless specifically allowed by a Forest Officer in the course of the settlement.
Protected Forests: The State Government is empowered to constitute any land other than reserved forests as protected forests over which the Government has proprietary rights and the power to issue rules regarding the use of such forests. This power has been used to establish State control over trees, whose timber, fruit or other non-wood products have revenue-raising potential.
Village forest: Village forests are the one in which the State Government may assign to ‘any village community the rights of Government to or over any land which has been constituted a reserved forest’.
Degree of protection: Reserved forests > Protected forests > Village forests