Definition of forest

THE Supreme Court’s interim order to revert to the expansive definition of ‘forest’, as laid down in a landmark 1996 ruling, comes amid growing concerns over the dilution of environmental protection norms. A public interest litigation has challenged last year’s amended Forest Conservation Act. According to the 1996 judgment, ‘forest’ has to be understood in terms of its dictionary meaning, including undeclared forest land. The 2023 amendment says land has to be either notified or specifically recorded in a government record to qualify as a forest. The new definition, the contention is, would shave off about 1.97 lakh square km of undeclared forest land from the protection it had been accorded. The apprehensions of diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes are not unfounded and need to be addressed.

After the amended rules were notified in November 2023, states and union territories were asked to prepare a record of forest land within a year. The petitioners raised the apprehension that land classified as ‘forest’ as per the earlier definition would get diverted for non-forest use during this exercise. The Supreme Court has now asked the Centre to furnish a record of land registered as ‘forest’ by panels constituted by states and UTs as per the 1996 yardstick. Even after 27 years, some states are yet to classify forests in accordance with the ruling. The data is bound to be scrutinised for discrepancies. The court’s observation that the dictionary meaning was adopted so as to align with the intent of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, sets the stage for robust arguments, and hopefully, course correction.

The precondition of securing the court’s approval for setting up zoos and safaris is welcome. Expert review is necessary to forestall large-scale projects which endanger natural forests and wildlife.