New Delhi, In a crucial development, the Supreme Court refrained from staying the amendments to the Forest Conservation Act set to be effective from December 1. The court’s decision followed assurances from the Union government that no hasty actions would be taken until specific guidelines exempting certain areas from the new law are established.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha heard the matter in response to a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by 13 retired public servants challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments. The petitioners argued that the changes pose a severe threat to India’s forests, labeling them as a “death knell.”
The Union government, represented by additional solicitor-general Balbir Singh, clarified that the amendments do not seek to dilute the 1996 judgment’s definition of forest land under the Forest Conservation Act’s Section 2. Singh emphasized that private lands are indeed included, contrary to misconceptions.
The court acknowledged the 1996 ruling’s expansive definition of forest land, as defined under the Forest Conservation Act, and sought clarification from Singh. The government assured that any exemptions from the amended law’s definition of forest cover would be subject to forthcoming guidelines.
In response to concerns raised by the petitioners, the court noted, “If you are saying you are not diluting the definition of forest as under the 1996 judgment, we will record your statement. We will hear this petition after six weeks as it has serious implications.”
The stay application was moved by the petitioners, asserting that the amendments restrict the broad scope of forests outlined in the TN Godavarman case’s 1996 ruling. The court allowed the government to file a detailed response to the petition within four weeks.
Senior advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen, representing the petitioners, highlighted the lack of clarity on the existence of State Expert Committees (SEC) in each state, as mandated by the 1996 judgment. He expressed concerns that once the amendments are notified, states might have unchecked authority.
The stay plea argued that irreversible damage could occur if forests are diverted and destroyed, violating principles of Indian environmental law. The amendments, passed in August, exempt forest land up to 10 hectares from scrutiny for security-related infrastructure projects. The lack of clarity on inclusions raised further questions.
The court also issued a notice on another petition challenging the amendments, emphasizing the potential ecological loss resulting from exemptions to activities like safaris, zoos, and eco-tourism facilities in forests.
This development marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal debate surrounding the Forest Conservation Act amendments.
