NEW DELHI, 4 Mar: The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed all the states and union territories (UT) to constitute within a month expert committeesfor preparing a consolidated record of lands, including forest like areas, unclassed and community forest lands.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Augustine George Masih said that the expert committees 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) requires all the state governments and UTs to prepare a consolidated record of such lands, including forest-like areas
identified by the expert committees, 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) is 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 expert committees 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 that the Centre shall consolidate the state-wise position and place the same before the court.
It said that 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 UTs.
The bench clarified that if the directions are not followed in letter and spirit by the states and UTs, 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 3 February 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 compensatory land is provided either by the state government or the union of India for the purpose of afforestation,” the court had said on 3 February.
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 that 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 that, 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 kilometres 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 31 March, 2024.
The top court had 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 UT, on its website by 15 April 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 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 had 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)
