{"id":812,"date":"2024-02-23T10:18:13","date_gmt":"2024-02-23T10:18:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/iasquest.com\/?p=812"},"modified":"2026-02-11T19:20:47","modified_gmt":"2026-02-11T19:20:47","slug":"gs-iii-conservation-environmental-pollution-and-degradation-environmental-impact-assessment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kingmakersiasacademy.com\/current-affairs\/gs-iii-conservation-environmental-pollution-and-degradation-environmental-impact-assessment\/","title":{"rendered":"GS-III (Conservation, Environmental Pollution and Degradation, Environmental Impact Assessment)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

News: SC directs govts to follow \u2018broad\u2019 definition of forests.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Q1. The range of the term \u2018forest\u2019 from T N Godavarman Tirumalpad Case gives more space for the environment than the 2023 amendment. Elucidate.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf The Supreme Court has directed governments to follow the \u201cbroad and all-encompassing\u201d<\/strong> definition of forest as laid down in its 1996 judgment in the T N Godavarman case until a consolidated record of all kinds of forests across the country is prepared.
\u25cf Recently, a three-judge Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud passed the order on petitions that challenged the 2023 amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA) on the ground that the modifications had \u201csubstantially diluted\u201d<\/strong> the definition of forest, and had reduced the ambit of the Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

T N Godavarman Tirumalpad Case, 1996 and Forest Conservation Act 1980:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf The court ruled that the FCA would apply to all land parcels that were either recorded as \u2018forest\u2019, or which resembled the dictionary meaning of forest.
\u25cf The term \u2018forest land\u2019 will not only include \u2018forests\u2019 as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.\u201d
\u25cf In the FCA, the term \u201creserved forest\u201d<\/strong> is used only in the limited context of dereservation<\/strong>. Section 2(i) says that no reserve forest \u201cshall cease to be reserved\u201d without prior approval from the Centre. Clearly, a clause on dereservation can only apply to what is reserved.
\u25cf This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in 2022 in Narinder Singh & Ors vs Divesh Bhutani & Ors<\/strong>. \u201cAs clause (i) specifically refers to a reserved forest\u2026it is obvious that clauses (ii), (iii) & (iv) apply to any other forest\u2026 Therefore, forest as understood by its dictionary meaning is covered by Section 2\u201d of the FC<\/strong> Act itself, a three-judge Bench of Justice ruled.
\u25cf This potentially landmark pro-conservation measure<\/strong> was, however, not a part of The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Supreme Court\u2019s definition of \u2018forest\u2019:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf The court ruled that the FCA would apply to all land parcels that were either recorded as \u2018forest\u2019, or which resembled the dictionary meaning of forest. The term \u2018forest land\u2019 will not only include \u2018forests\u2019 <\/strong>as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How SC judgement impeding FCA:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf The government had justified the 2023 amendments as a means to address the development needs of forest-dwelling tribes.
\u25cf However, the basic development needs of tribal communities are covered under Section 3 of the Forest Rights Act, 2006<\/strong>, that requires the Centre to divert forest land \u201cnotwithstanding anything contained in the FC Act\u201d<\/strong> for certain facilities managed by the government.
\u25cf An amendment to the FCA would not have been necessary only to build these facilities \u2014 such as schools, dispensaries\/hospitals, anganwadis, ration shops, etc.,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What are the grounds on which 2023 FCA could be challenged?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf The challenge (Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors v. Union of India & Ors)<\/strong> was filed by a group of retired Indian Forest Service officers and NGOs such as Vanashakti and Goa Foundation<\/strong>.
\u25cf The major apprehension was the potential exclusion of 28% of India\u2019s forests that lie outside Recorded Forest Areas from the purview of the FC Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Until consolidation, 1996 judgement overtook the forest definition:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u25cf The consolidated record of forests \u2014 required to be completed within one year under the amended 2023 Rules \u2014 land parcels that would have been considered forests under the 1996 judgment could now be used for non-forest purposes without requiring any clearance under the FCA<\/strong>.
\u25cf At this, the SC explicitly asked its 1996 definition to be followed until the consolidated record of forests was finalised<\/strong>.
\u25cf The States and Union Territories have until March 31 to submit comprehensive records of forests identified by the expert committees constituted as per the 1996 judgment. The Ministry will have to publish this data on its website by April 15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

       The Court needs the compiled record and after that the final disposal will be given. Increasing the forest lands with stringent rules to not convert into unnecessary and private wishes retains the green environment.<\/code><\/pre>\n\n\n\n
Reference:   https:\/\/indianexpress.com\/article\/explained\/supreme-court-forests-definition-conservation-9171444\/<\/a><\/p>\n