The Supreme Court, hearing a petition filed by 13 retired civil servants, has refused to implement a stay to the amendments to the Forest Rights Act on November 30. The proposed amendment, which was slated to take effect from December 1, is criticised for bringing new provisions that now render a large amount of land exempt from the protection afforded earlier as the new law now institutes a much narrower definition of forest. Furthermore, the amendment has been criticised as giving the Centre “too much” discretionary power. The Union government has assured the court that no “precipitative action” would be taken until guidelines for an exemption from the new law’s definition of forest are framed, according to the Hindustan Times.
The Forest Conservation Act is a legislation designed to safeguard and promote the conservation of forests. According to this act, state governments are prohibited from issuing any order until it is approved by the central government to change the status of a forest area or authorise the use of forest land for non-forest activities, allocate portions of forest land to non-governmental organisations, including corporations or clear the forest area for any other purposes. The original law granted significant authority to the central government, empowering it to ensure fair compensation for any diversion of forest land, even if not officially labelled as ‘forest’ in official records. Over the years, the legislation has seen multiple amendments which made it into a provision that primarily focused on extending protection to areas resembling forests. According to the current government, the current amendments aim to eliminate ambiguities and provide “clarity” regarding the Act’s applicability and mark a shift from its past interventions.
The proposed Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 or what it is now known as, Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, has been noted that it seeks to amend the pivotal law which was designed to curb the conversion of forest land for non-forestry or commercial purposes and prevent the corporate takeover of forest land and tribal rights. The new law was passed by the Lok Sabha in July, and by the Rajya Sabha in August.
“Death knell” to forest rights
The PIL filed by the retired public servants sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the Forest Conservation Act amendments. They have also moved a stay application by arguing that the law restricts the scope of forest which was informed by the Supreme Court’s judgement in the TN Godavarman case of 1996. The petitioners have forewarned that if the forests are destroyed, it would be a source of damage that will have repercussions that will not be able to be fully reversed, “The 2023 Amendment Act is in blatant violation of several principles of Indian environmental law, the principle of sustainable development, precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, principle of non-regression and public trust doctrine.”
The Supreme Court has in turn given its response and has opted to not stay the amendments. The bench which comprises Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha asked the government to respond to the concerns of the petitioners. The additional solicitor-general Balbir Singh responded by saying that that the amendments had no intention to dilute the 1996 judgement’s definition of forests. The government further stated that any exemption from the definition of forests would be in line with upcoming guidelines. To address petitioner concerns, the court went on to direct the government to ensure that “no precipitative action” would be taken per the Godavarman judgement’s understanding of the definition of a forest. The court has granted the government four weeks to file a detailed response to the petition.
The court further issued notice on the basis of another petition which raised a similar argument, where senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayan has pointed out that the new amendment allows the construction of projects of national importance and national security buildings on forest land which is within 100 kms of distance from the international borders. According to the Hindustan Times report, the senior advocate has stated that the north-eastern states, including Sikkim, have objected to this provision.
According to a report by Sabrang India, the proposed amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 have raised objections on various grounds. Critics have voiced their concerns about potential dilution of the Supreme Court’s pivotal 1996 Godavarman case judgement, which granted the extension of legal protection to extensive forest areas which were not officially recorded as forests. The new amendment thereby has proposed exemption from forest clearance for construction projects within 100 km of international borders or the Line of Control in geographically sensitive regions.
Furthermore, this amendment also brings to effect a proposed change the name of the 1980 law from the Forest (Conservation) Act to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, which basically translates to the Forest (Conservation and Augmentation) Act. Critics have argued that the new name is exclusionary and overlooks linguistic and cultural diversity, especially in South India and the North-East. However, the Environment Ministry had defended the name change, stating that it brings to light the broader elements of conservation of forests.
Related:
Forest Conservation Bill 2023: too many exemptions, discretion to Centre
Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill: North-east to bear the brunt
Forest Conservation Rules violate Forest Rights Act: reiterates NCST
Adivasi struggle led by trailblazers working on-ground: Teesta Setalvad