The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 is a proposed amendment that aims to modify the crucial 1980 law which was initially enacted to prevent indiscriminate conversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes. The Act gives the central government crucial power and mandate to ensure proper compensation for any diversion of forest land for non-forestry uses. The provision is available even for land that may not be officially classified as ‘forest’ in government records.

While the Act has undergone several amendments over the past decades, primarily focused on extending protection to larger areas resembling forests, the latest set of proposed amendments set it apart from its earlier trajectory. According to the government, these amendments are necessary to eliminate ambiguities and bring clarity regarding the Act’s applicability to various lands.

Among the proposed amendments, some specify exemptions from the Act, while others actively promote cultivating plantations on non-forest land, potentially contributing to increased tree cover, carbon sequestration, and supporting India’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2070. Furthermore, the amendments aim to remove the Act’s restrictions on developing infrastructure that would aid national security and create livelihood opportunities for communities residing on the fringes of forests.

The proposed amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 have faced objections on various grounds, including concerns about diluting the Supreme Court’s 1996 Godavarman case judgement that extended protection to extensive forest areas, even if they were not officially recorded as forests. Additionally, objections were raised about the exemption from forest clearance for construction projects within 100 km of international borders or the Line of Control in geographically sensitive regions.

The joint committee’s report acknowledges the objections raised by various stakeholders who argue that the amendments dilute forest protection measures. The Environment Ministry however has refuted these claims by asserting that the proposed provisions in the Bill guard against such situations.

Resistance was also encountered regarding the proposal to change the name of the 1980 law from the Forest (Conservation) Act to the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, translating to the Forest (Conservation and Augmentation) Act. Critics argued that the new name was exclusionary and neglected large sections of the population in both South India and the North-East due to linguistic and cultural diversity. However the Environment Ministry in turn defended the name change, stating that it emphasised the need to conserve and augment forests, as forest conservation involves more than just granting clearances.

These amendments were introduced in the Lok Sabha in March 2023, and a draft copy has been available for public comment since June 2022. This early disclosure sparked opposition from various quarters, including objections from some northeastern states that raised concerns about unilateral land acquisition for defence purposes. Environmental groups also voiced opposition, claiming that the amendments removed central protection for areas classified as ‘deemed forests’ (forested areas not officially recognized as forests), potentially compromising them by permitting activities such as tourism in these areas.

The Lok Sabha motioned to refer the Bill to a joint committee, which was seconded by the Rajya Sabha. Jairam Ramesh, Congress spokesperson and chair of the Standing Committee on Science, Environment, and Forests, expressed dissent over the decision to refer the Bill to a joint committee instead of the standing committee. The 31-member joint committee consists of 21 members from the Lok Sabha and 10 from the Rajya Sabha, with 18 members belonging to the ruling BJP.

India’s forest cover is defined as land over one hectare in size with a tree canopy density exceeding 10%. While India’s total forest cover has increased to 38,251 sq. km from 2001 to 2021, the rise primarily occurred in open forests with tree canopy density ranging from 10% to 40%. However, dense forest cover has decreased during this period. The proposed amendments encouraging plantation and cultivation may lead to increased tree cover but are unfortunately unlikely to reverse the loss of dense 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

Cottage industries on the verge of extinction due to deforestation and modernisation in Bengal

The post Parliamentary Committee Gives Nod to Proposed Dilution of Forest Rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

New Delhi: The All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA) has written to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law & Justice about reforms in personal laws.

The organisation, which has actively dealt with issues of personal laws for the last 40 years, noted its surprise about the Committee’s decision to ask for memoranda concerning the entire gamut of personal law within a short period of 21 days.

“This gives the impression that the entire exercise of asking for memoranda is not a serious attempt to get the opinions of various organisations and people working on the issue, but is just a formality. If it were serious in eliciting views and in getting Memoranda, the Committee would have allotted far more time for this purpose. It is unacceptable and absurd that suggestions for such wide-ranging reforms can be given in three weeks,” the letter noted.

In its memorandum, AIDWA unequivocally opposed a Unifrom Civil Code (UCC), stating that it cannot be equated to equality.

“The 21st Law Commission to whom the Modi Government had referred the question of the UCC, had clearly stated that “a Uniform Civil Code is neither necessary nor desirable.” It further recommended reform in different personal laws and tolerance of plurality and differences in the different personal laws. AIDWA advocates reform in different personal laws in consultation with the concerned community, particularly with the women of the community.”

Furthermore, the women’s rights organisation called some of the aspects identified for review “vague.” The Committee has said it is thinking about reforming personal laws, but it hasn’t delineated the areas which would be subjected to reform.

“This can only mean codifying Muslim personal law and perhaps laws which come under the Sixth Schedule, pertaining to the tribal areas.”

AIDWA said that mere codification does not give equal rights to women, adding that it could only be after extensive discussions with the communities involved.

“We have seen how Muslims have been targeted for exercising their choice to wear a Hijab and how this has affected their fundamental right to education. Also, the Central government, without protecting the rights of divorced Muslim women, initiated the law to put Muslim men in jail with an obvious communal intent for a practice that the Supreme Court had already declared null and void. Muslim youth who have been in consensual relationships have been targeted and jailed in several fictitious cases of ‘Love Jihad’.”

In these circumstances, we are fearful that on the pretext of reviewing of personal law, the effort may be to bring in uniform laws, which will be majoritarian laws, and not laws that give substantive equal rights to women. Uniformity of law by itself will not result in substantive equal rights for women, and in fact, will probably result in duplicating Hindu laws and their gender biases on all communities,” AIDWA said it its memorandum.

Furthermore, AIDWA wrote that nothing had been done to ensure equal rights for women over marital property. Additionally, as per AIDWA, Hindus and other women do not have equal land rights in agricultural property in a few such, such as Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh.

“Though the Hindu Succession Act was amended in 2005 to remove an exception which exempted agricultural land from the purview of the HSA, the inheritance to agricultural land continues to be governed by some state laws which actively stop women from this inheritance. In fact, these laws have been placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution with the intention of keeping them outside the purview of courts.”

The organisation also discussed anti-conversion laws, child marriage, etc.

“We request the Committee to make its position UCC clear so that we are assured that the present exercise is not a step towards bringing about a Uniform Civil Code. We, therefore, urge the Committee not to embark on this mammoth task in such a short period and withdraw the three weeks deadlines. We also urge the Committee to have hearings in centres throughout the country as has been done in the past on women-related Laws.”

AIDWA Memorandum on Reforms in Personal Laws.pdf 

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post AIDWA Writes to Parliamentary Panel, Seeks More Time for Views on Personal Law Reforms appeared first on SabrangIndia.