Former civil servants have filed a petition in the Supreme Court, urging the apex court to render the newly amended Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act of 2023 “null and void.” Their petition is argued on the basis of that this latest amendment infringes upon several fundamental rights enshrined in our constitution and, in fact, runs counter to the principles and ethics of Indian environmental laws. The Supreme Court, in response, has called upon the Union government to provide its response on this issue.
In their petition, the petitioners have essentially questioned the constitutionality of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act of 2023, arguing that the act represents a ‘dereliction of duty’ on behalf of the State who is required to protect and conserve the environment. Furthermore, according to The Wire, the petition argues that the new amended Act “introduces a regulatory regime that facilitates a regression in the nature and extent of protection that forests were afforded earlier.”, thus meaning that the government seems to have reduced its duties towards protection of forests as opposed to what it had signed up for earlier. Further arguing and identifying the potential ills that act would do for the environment, the petitioners have asked for the act to be rendered invalid.
Under the Directive Principles of State Policy it is s the government’s mandated duty to safeguard the environment and forests. The Constitution has perennially entrusted the government with the role of a guardian for these vital natural resources. However, the proposed bill has raised concerns of potential misuse of this guardianship and attempts to escape from the responsibility that accompanies it.
According to Livelaw, the petitioners have also put this in view with the existence of legal principles in India such as the precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, principle of non-regression and public trust doctrine – each of these they argue have been ignored in the act.
The petitioners consist of retired civil servants, including former members of ministries, as well as former members of the Standing Committee of the National Board of Wildlife, and other esteemed retired officials. The group of petitioners also has the former IAS officer MK Ranjitsinh, who led an advisory team which was created to assist the court on bringing back and reintroducing cheetahs in India.
Following the hearing, a notice from the Supreme Court has been served to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change as well as the Ministry of Law and Justice. The government of India’s is expected to furnish an official response to the writ petition.
Senior Advocate Prasanto Chandra Sen, Advocates Kaushik Chaudhury and Shibani Ghosh are representing the petitions, whereas the Supreme Court bench comprises of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar, and Prashant Kumar Mishra. The bench has called upon the Union Ministries of Environment & Forests and Law & Justice to furnish their response within a period of six weeks. History tells us this crucial petition could hold the potential to shape the future of environmental and forest conservation in our country.
What does the petition say?
Senior advocate Prasanto Chandra Sen for the petitioners has stated to the court that the amendment seeks to ‘restrict’ definition of ‘forests’ which was earlier defined by the Supreme Court in the 1996 TN Godavarman case, according to IANS.
The 1995 case was a crucial chapter in the history of forest rights and environmental conservation in India when T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a landmark writ petition in the Supreme Court. The reason behind this legal action was the need to safeguard the Nilgiris forest land from the devastating consequences of illegal timber operations.
This petition has had far-reaching consequences for India’s forests and environmental sustainability. For in its response to the petition the Supreme Court issued a series of comprehensive directives designed to ensure the sustainable and secure use of the nation’s forests. Moreover, the court established an efficient framework that was tasked with keeping a check on monitoring and implementation where regional and state-level communities play pivotal roles in regulating the movement and felling of timber across the country. This was a landmark judgement which sought to secure India’s forests and their biodiversity – but especially so for the livelihoods and future generations of countless Indians dependent on them.
However, the petitioners today argued that aspects in the amended law of 2023 are hazy and subject to interpretation, which the petitioners attest, may post a threat to the idea of public interest as well as have the possibility to work in favour commercial entities. The petitioners also argued that this could really ensure a setback for forest conservation efforts borne painstakingly in India, especially the north eastern states.
The plea further asserts that, “Each diversion of land, without any cumulative ceiling being prescribed across the country, will pockmark our forests with cancerously growing deforested ‘islands’ and fragment them, causing enormous ecological loss.”
What is the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023?
The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill of 2023 passed in the Lok Sabha this year in July as concerns and fears run amok for forest rights activists and tribal groups. What essentially does the amendment seek to do?
According to Sabrang India, the act seeks to introduce broad changes to the 1980 forest law, which was initially formulated to stop the rampant transformation of forest land into land non-forestry purposes. The amended act wishes to exempt certain lands that come under this act thus seeks to make it easier for these lands to be stripped of trees and be used for commercial purposes. It must be of note that about 28% of India’s forests remain outside the purview of the Recorded Forest Area, and thus will lose whatever protection they had been afforded earlier. However, this is not the first time the law has been amended, it has been amended over the years, yet the dilution of the original provisions that were provided in this Act is what has been a source of immense alarm to activists and observers alike.
The Act had originally granted the central government a pivotal role, entrusting upon it the authority and responsibility to ensure appropriate compensation when and wherever forest land was redirected for non-forestry uses, and what is more, this provision was extended even to lands not officially designated as ‘forest’ in government records.
However, the current set of proposed amendments have taken a steep shift from its previous trajectory. The government, in its response, has argued that these changes are motivated by the need for eliminating ambiguities and bringing clarity to the Act’s applicability across a diverse arena of land categories. However, critics argue that the act gives the government too many exemptions.
Among the proposed modifications, some are specific exemptions from the Act’s purview, while others actively advocate for plantation cultivation on non-forest land. Furthermore, these amendments aim to dismantle restrictions on infrastructure development, particularly in regions which are considered vital for national security such as those areas near the nation’s borders.
However, these proposed amendments have triggered concerns on multiple fronts. Foremost among these concerns is the fear that these changes may dilute the impact of the seminal 1996 Godavarman case judgement delivered by the Supreme Court. This landmark judgement was extremely progressive and ahead of its time in that it also extended protection to extensive, forest-like areas, even when official recognition as ‘forests’ was lacking.
Another contentious point in the amended act revolves around the exemption from the forest clearance requirement for construction projects that will be located within a 100-kilometre radius of international borders or along the Line of Control in geographically sensitive regions if they are being given for security-related to tourism related projects. Furthermore, the new Act will be applicable only to lands that have been designated and notified as forest under the law on or after October 25, 1980.
Activists have contended that the proposed amendments might potentially weaken forest protection measures. In response, the Environment Ministry has countered these claims, asserting that the provisions embedded in the Bill have been carefully designed to guard against such scenarios.
According to Hindustan Times, the petition today has asserted that “these kinds of exemptions will be the death knell of forests in India.” The future for forest rights stands at a crucial juncture.
Related
Parliamentary Committee Gives Nod to Proposed Dilution of Forest Rights
How a battle is being waged within India’s forests, for rights over land and resources
Alarming Odisha arrests, ‘illegal’ detentions ahead of Vedanta bauxite public hearing