New Delhi- The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all the states and Union Territories to constitute within a month an expert committee for preparing a consolidated record of lands, including forest like areas, unclassed and community forest lands.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih said the expert committee shall complete within six months the exercise as required under Rule 16 (1) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023.
The bench noted that rule 16 (1) required all the state governments and Union Territories to prepare a consolidated record of such lands, including forest like areas identified by the expert committee, unclassed forest lands and community forest lands to which the provisions of the 2023 forest conservation law would be applicable.
It passed the order while hearing a batch of pleas against the amendments to the 2023 forest conservation law. The bench observed that once the exercise, as required to be done under rule 16 (1) was complete, it would lead to resolution of many issues.
“We, therefore, direct all the states and Union Territories, in which the expert committee has not yet been constituted, to constitute such committees within a period of one month from today,” the bench said.
It noted that as per the Centre’s affidavit, certain states have not appointed the expert committee yet.
“The said committee shall complete the exercise as required under rule 16 (1) of the said Rules along with the directions issued by this court… within a period of six months from today and submit a report to the Union of India,” it said.
The bench said the Centre shall consolidate the state wise position and place the same before the court.
It said the apex court’s registrar (judicial) shall communicate its order to the chief secretary of all the states and also to the administrators of the Union Territories.
The bench clarified that if the directions were not followed in letter and spirit by the states and Union Territories, it would hold the chief secretaries and administrators responsible for the lapse and consider taking such steps as found appropriate.
It posted the matter for hearing after six months.
The bench said that its February 3 direction passed in the matter would continue in the meantime.
“We make it clear that until further orders, no steps will be taken by the Union of India or any of the states, which will lead to reduction of the forest land unless a compensatory land is provided either by the state government or the Union of India for the purpose of afforestation,” the court had said on February 3.
During the hearing on Tuesday, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said they have filed an affidavit in the matter.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for one of the petitioners, said, “In this amendment which is under challenge here, they have given compensatory afforestation as a principle which they will use whenever forest land is diverted.” He said chopping of entire forests would have severe impact on the environment and climate change.
“My plea today is only this, until this identification process is completed, let them not in any way touch the forests,” he said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for another petitioner, referred to a report about forest cover in the country.
Justice Gavai said as per a recent news article, the forest cover in the country has increased.
In February last year, the top court took note of the submission that the definition of forest under the 2023 amended law on conservation left out nearly 1.99 lakh square kilometers of forest land from the ambit of “forests” and made it available for other purposes.
It had directed the state governments and union territories to provide the details of forest land within their jurisdiction to the Centre by March 31, 2024.
The top court had said the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change would put all the details on “forest like area, unclassed forest land and community forest land”, to be provided by the states and Union Territories, on its website by April 15 last year.
In its interim order, the bench had asked the states and UTs to act as per the definition of “forest” as laid down by the top court in the 1996 judgement in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad versus Union of India.
The petitioners alleged the wide definition of a “forest” in the apex court judgement was narrowed under Section 1A inserted in the amended law.
The amended law says land has to be either notified as a forest or specifically recorded as a forest in a government record to qualify as a “forest”.
The Centre had said the amendments were passed following the top court’s directions in the judgement.
On March 27, 2023, the Centre introduced the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill whereas the pleas challenged the constitutionality of the amended law, seeking it to be struck down as null and void.
Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group: Join Now
Be Part of Quality Journalism |
Quality journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce and despite all the hardships we still do it. Our reporters and editors are working overtime in Kashmir and beyond to cover what you care about, break big stories, and expose injustices that can change lives. Today more people are reading Kashmir Observer than ever, but only a handful are paying while advertising revenues are falling fast. |
| ACT NOW |
| MONTHLY | Rs 100 |  |
| YEARLY | Rs 1000 | |
| LIFETIME | Rs 10000 | |
