- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- Won't Take Precipitative Action On...
Won't Take Precipitative Action On Changed Definition Of 'Forest' Under 2023 Amendment Until Further Orders : Centre Assures Supreme Court
Sheryl Sebastian
1 Dec 2023 5:06 AM GMT
The Centre on Thursday (November 30) told the Supreme Court that it will not take any action based on the changed definition of forest land in the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 until further orders from the court. The Court was considering a plea challenging the constitutionality of the recent amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023. A bench of Justice BR Gavai...
The Centre on Thursday (November 30) told the Supreme Court that it will not take any action based on the changed definition of forest land in the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 until further orders from the court. The Court was considering a plea challenging the constitutionality of the recent amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023.
A bench of Justice BR Gavai and PS Narasimha recorded the submission of the Additional Solicitor General Balbir Singh that in the new amendment Act, there is no intention to dilute the scope of forest as defined in the Supreme Court judgment of T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India in W.P. (C) No.202/1995 as contended by the petitioners. The Centre informed the Court that exemptions to the definition of forest land will be granted under sub-section (2) of Section 1A in accordance with the guidelines that the Central Government is yet to notify. The ASG told the Court that the guidelines are being finalized and would be notified shortly.
"..in order to address the concern of the petitioners, he makes a statement that no precipitative actions will be taken by the Union of India until further orders in respect of the forest, as understood in accordance with the dictionary sense.” the Court recorded in its order.
The bench was considering a writ petition filed by a group of retired civil servants, including a former secretary and an additional secretary to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), challenging the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023. Notice was issued on the petition on October 20.
Petitioners sought stay of the Act
In view of the fact that the Act was coming into effect from December 1, the petitioners moved an application seeking stay of the legislation. Senior Advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen, along with Shibani Ghosh and Kaushik Chaudhary, argued for the petitioners that Act has the effect of diluting the definition of forest as laid down in the TN Goadavarman case. According to the judgment, forest, in its dictionary sense, is also covered by the Act and the amendment has the effect of diluting this meaning. Section 1A is likely to restrict the definition of forest and exclude the aforesaid category of forest, as understood in accordance with the dictionary sense, from the ambit of the Forest Conservation Act.
In response, the ASG assured the bench that there was no intention to dilute the Supreme Court's definition. Recording the Union's assurance, the bench posted the matter after 6 weeks.
Also among the petitioners are five former principal chief conservators of forests and ex-members of a standing committee of the National Board for Wildlife (NBWL).
The petitioners have contested the constitutionality of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, citing concerns that the new law would significantly undermine the country's long-standing forest governance framework. They have said that the amendment represents a 'complete dereliction of duty' imposed on the State to protect and improve the environment. Accordingly, emphasising the adverse implications of the amendments on the environment, biodiversity, and climate resilience on the one hand; and the constitutional imperatives enshrined in Articles 14, 21, 48A, 51(c), and 51A(g) of the Constitution on the other hand, the petitioners have asked for the impugned amendment act to be invalidated. In support of their contention that the recent amendments ought to be set aside, they have also invoked several seminal principles of Indian environmental law, such as precautionary principle, intergenerational equity, principle of non-regression and public trust doctrine, all of which have allegedly been overlooked.
The former civil servants have further argued that the amendments allow for exemptions for various projects and activities in forest lands, potentially serving commercial interests at the expense of the broader public welfare. T
Each diversion of land without any cumulative ceiling being prescribed across the country, the petitioners have further argued, will 'pockmark' our forests with cancerously growing deforested islands and fragment them, causing enormous ecological loss. They have also raised concerns over the 'vagueness' surrounding project definitions and the potential for large-scale destruction of forest lands. To illustrate their contention, the petitioners have referred to provisions pertaining to security-related infrastructure, plantations, and reforested areas.
Apart from this, the former civil servants have expressed reservations about the delegated legislative powers granted to the government under the amended act, insisting that the absence of adequate guidelines for exercising such discretion could facilitate forest land diversion without appropriate regulatory oversight.
In conclusion, the petitioners have argued –
“India is one of the most vulnerable countries to impacts of climate change, and weakening its ecological security by permitting rampant deforestation will only worsen the country's adaptive capacity. India's forests are a crucial defence against the climate crisis. Significantly, it is now established that the carbon sequestration potential of natural forests is 40 times greater as compared to plantations, and therefore we as a country cannot afford to lose our natural carbon sinks as the alternatives such as plantations are evidently not as effective. A law that is so manifestly arbitrary in its scope, blatant in its intent to circumvent the interpretation of the law as adopted by this court, and will likely endanger ecological and food security of the country must be struck down.”
Case Details
Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1164 of 2023
