NEW DELHI, 3 Feb: The Supreme Court on Monday restrained until further orders the Centre and the states from taking any step that would reduce forest areas.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a batch of petitions against the amendments to the 2023 forest conservation law.
“We will not permit anything which leads to reduction of forest area. We further order that until further orders, no steps will be taken by the union of India and any state which will lead to reduction of forest land unless compensatory land is provided by the Centre and the states,” the bench said.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said she would file response on the applications filed in the matter within three weeks.
A status report would also be placed before the court prior to the next date of hearing, added Bhati.
One of the advocates appearing in the matter said the pleadings were complete and the issue raised in the pleas related to the amendments to forest conservation law of 2023.
The bench posted the hearing on 4 March.
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 kilometres of forest land from the ambit of ‘forests’ and made it available for other purposes.
The bench said any fresh proposal for opening a zoo or starting a ‘safari’ on forest land would now require the Supreme Court’s approval.
It directed the state governments and union territories to provide the details of forest land within their jurisdiction to the Centre by 31 March, 2024.
The top court said that 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 (UT), on its website by 15 April last year.
“… we issue an interim order to the effect that any proposal for the establishment of zoos and safaris referred to in the Wild Life Protection Act 1972, enacted by the government or any authority in forest areas other than protected areas, shall not be finally approved by the states/union territories, save and except with the prior permission of this court,” it had said.
In its interim order, the bench 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 v union of India.
The petitioners alleged that 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 that 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 said that the amendments were passed following the top court’s directions in the judgement.
On 27 March, 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. (PTI)
