FOREST CONSERVATION CASE AND ITS IMPORTANCE IN

FOREST PROTECTION
(Project Report)

Submitted by: Submitted To:

Name- Shashank Suresh Ms. Stuti Binay Nanda

Roll no.: 144 Faculty : Environment Law
Sec: B
Semester- IV

HidayatullaH NatioNal law uNiversity, Post uParwara,

Naya raiPur – 492002 (CHattisgarH)
 Acknowledgements

I, Shashank Suresh takes genuine pride and pleasure in presenting this project with the grace
of the almighty to Ms. Stuti Binay Nanda. I would first of all like to express my most sincere
gratitude to Ms. Stuti Binay Nanda for his paramount support and encouragement. I am
thankful for being given the honour of making this project on “Forest Conservation Case
and its Importance in Forest Protection.” I am thankful to the library staff and committee
members for all the conveniences which played a major role in the completion of this project.
I would like to thank my family for their perpetual support and encouragement. I would also
like to thank my friends for their support and advice. Last but the most important, I would
like to thank God for keeping me in good health and senses to complete this project. I am
thankful to my seniors for all their boundless support, encouragement and valuable advice
whenever needed. I present this project with a humble heart.

Shashank Suresh

Sem-IV,

Roll no.-144

2|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………2

2. Introduction……………………………………………………………..….4

4.1 Abstract……………………………………………………….……..…5

4.2 Objective…………………………………………………….……..…..5

4.3 Applicable Laws………………………………………….……………5

4.4 ResearchMethodology……………………………………….……..…5

5 . Organization of study

5.1) Forest Conservation and Introduction of Judicial Activism…....….6

5.2) Forest Conservation Act 1980 and Judiciary………………...........7-8

5.3) T.N. Godavarman Series of Cases……………………………....…9-11

5.4) Analysis………………………...……………………………………12-14

6. Conclusion………………………………………………..……….…….……15

7. References……………………………………………………...........................16

3|Page
 Introduction
The Indian Forest Act of 1927 does not define forests, though forest areas have been legally
notified under it as reserve forest, protected forest or village forest. The watershed Forest
Conservation Act of 1980 made central government approval mandatory before diverting
forestland for non-forest use.
Watershed case
The debate over defining a forest came to the fore in 1996 with the Supreme Court ruling in
the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India1. The case began as a petition
to stop illegal felling of timber in the Nilgiri hills but expanded into an overhaul of the Indian
forest policy. The Supreme Court said that forests would be defined by their “dictionary
meaning”, without elaborating what this meaning was. It also assumed responsibility for
implementing the Forest Conservation Act with this new definition.
The court ordered all non-forest activity like sawmills and mining to be suspended in forest
areas and stopped felling of trees. It kept the Godavarman case open using the device of a
“continuing mandamus” and heard hundreds of matters related to the implementation of the
Forest Conservation Act. The ruling excluded the lower courts from admitting such
application, leaving the Supreme Court the sole administrator of the law when it came to
forest matters. This was until the creation of the National Green Tribunal in 2010 to “dispose
of cases relating to environmental protection and conservation of forests and other natural
resources”.
While the apex court has been both commended for taking such dramatic action to stop
indiscriminate destruction of forests and criticised for overstepping its boundaries, the
Godavarman case has gone on to show how essential it is to define forests.2
In its 1996 ruling, the court had asked states to identify, demarcate and notify forest areas.
Even 18 years later, many states have failed to do so. While hearing a case in 2014 of
whether a hotmix plant should be allowed to operate in Manda Khal village in Uttarakhand,
the National Green Tribunal noted the state government’s failure to chalk out its deemed
forests.

1
1997(2)SCC267
2
https://scroll.in/article/726461/a-short-history-of-indias-two-decade-struggle-to-define-what-a-forest-actually-i

4|Page
 Abstract

Case concerning the general question about conservation, preservation and protection of
forests and ecology, with the particular question being that when forest land is used for non
forest purposes, what measures are required to be taken to compensate for loss of forest land
and to compensate effect on the ecology. The Supreme Court (3 December 1997) placed
reliance on Article 21 of the Constitution of India but also on the Directive Principles in
India in Article 48A and the fundamental duty in Article 51A (g) of every citizen in
the Constitution of India

Objective
 Explain the genesis and development of Supreme Courts role in forest governance
 To study T.N. Godavarman series of cases and their impact on the forest protection

Applicable laws
 Part IV of the Constitution of India
 Environment Protection Acr, 1986
 Constitution of India
 Forest Act, 1927
 Forest (Conservation )Act, 1980

Research Methodology
This paper is made through Descriptive Research Methodology. Help of various resources
has been taken to make the project which is being mentioned below:

1. Statues
2. Books
3. Research paper
4. Dictionary
5. Case laws
6. Online articles

5|Page
Forest Conservation and Introduction of Judicial Activism
Forests are a major natural resource and are also recognised as a colourful expressions of
nature. They are also recognised as guardians and protectors of the wildlife of the country.
Forests are valued not only valued for various kinds of flora anad fauna but also for materials,
watersheds , cradles of rivers, checks on desertification, as a important recreational source
and for scenic beauty. Rig Veda mentions various attributes of God in trees. Plants were
regarded as possessing divine qualities with reference to their healing powers. Moreover ,
plants were deified as God Varuna , one of the most popular deities of Vedic times. In the
Matsya Purana, there is a verse:

Dashkoop Samavaethi Dashvapi Samshadah

Dashhed Samah putra dash putra Samo drama3

(one pond is equal to 10 wells, one son is equal to 10 ponds and one tree is equal to 10 sons
)During the last century, forests have been cut at a rate unequalled in the world and they are
disappearing at an alarming rate. In India, it has been claimed that we have got vegetation
cover over 19% of the total land area as against the accepted ideal of 33 % in India and over
40 % internationally .Thus vegetation cover is much less than required..

In 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad filed a writ petition4 with the Supreme Court of
India to protect the Nilgiris forest land from deforestation by illegal timber operations. The
Supreme Court expanded the Godavarman case from a matter of ceasing illegal operations in
one forest into a reformation of the entire country’s forest policy. In its first order on the
Godavarman case, the Court suspended tree felling across the entire country, paralyzing
wood-based industries. Despite a series of subsequent orders with far-reaching implications,
the case is still pending in the Supreme Court.
In the process of hearing over 800 interlocutory applications since 1996, the Court has
assumed the roles of policymaker, administrator of policy, and interpreter of law.The
Supreme Court’s vast assumption of powers concerning environmental issues has no
precedence from past cases, neither in India nor in other developing countries. The
Godavarman case opened a Pandora’s box that continues to affect industries and forest
dwellers across the country.

3
S.C. Shastri ; Environment Law, Fifteenth Edn.
4
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India 1997(2)SCC267

6|Page
 Forest (Conservation)Act, 1980 (FCA) and Judiciary

As mentioned above, the Central Government got the powers to make laws on forests in
1976. Following this, the Union Government passed the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980"
(FCA) which is a landmark in the history of the protection of forests. Mainly, this Act was
passed to remove the difficulties of the Forest Act, 1927 and to conserve the vegetation cover
of the nation.
This historical Act consists of only five sections but has proved very effective and successful
in the conservation of the forests.
The main object of the Act is “to provide for the conservation of forests and for matters
connected therewith or ancillary or incidental thereto". Conservation of forests is necessary as
deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental deterioration.
Deforestation has been taking place on a large scale in the country and it has caused wide-
spread concern. Thus, the Act has been passed to conserve the forests and check deforestation
effectively.
Section 2 of the Act places restrictions on de-reservation of forests or use of land for “non-
forest purposes”. It provides:
...no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the
Central Government, any order directing—
i. that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in
any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to
be reserved;
ii. that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose
iii. that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or
otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other
organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;
iv. that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees I which have
grown naturally in that land or portion for the purpose of using it for reafforestation.

7|Page
The Supreme Court has also defined the term “forest". In TM Godavarman Thirumulpad
v. Union of India5 (T.N. Godavarman III), I the court declared that the word “forest” must
be understood according designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for purpose of
Section 2(i) FCA, The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2 will not only include
“forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forests in the
government record irrespective of the ownership. This description of forest has been used in
many cases.
The court has made it clear that Section 2 is prospective in its operation and any
regularisation order on or after 25 October 1980 cannot be without the prior approval of the
Central Government.
The Act has put a blanket ban on the use of forest land or any part thereof for non-forest
purposes and made it a mandatory requirement to seek prior approval of the Central
Government to make use of forestland for non-forest purposes.
The Supreme Court has made it clear in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
India6 that the term "forest” in the FCA covers not only forests but also forest land, and
observed that forest is no longer res integra. Therefore, it also covers "dry cropland”.
The court has also made it clear that even if a licence has been granted for an industry by a
Ministry of the Central Government, prior approval of the Central Government is necessary
after the matter has been considered by the Advisory Committee constituted under the Act of
1980.7
In T.N. Godavarman III8, the Supreme Court has already observed that a forest includes the
area noted m the government records as forest, irrespective of private ownership or State
ownership. Any non-forest activity within such areas is violative of the FCA. The running of
sawmills of any kind is a non-forest activity which must be prohibited. No sawmills should
be permitted within a distance of 8 kms from the boundary of the demarcated forest area.
Moreover, no State can gave licence for mining without the prior approval of the Central
Government. All such ongoing activities must be stopped by the State Government

5
(1997) 2 SCC 267
6
(2001 10 SCC 645; AIR 2000 SC 1636
7
Goa Foundation v. State of Goa AIR 2001 Bom 318
8
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267

8|Page
 T.N. Godavarman Series of Cases

 The judgement pronounced by court in T.N. Godavarman II9 has become a guiding
force in cases of grant of licence to sawmills, veneer and plywood mills within the forest
area. Detailed directions were issued by the Supreme Court on 29 April 2002 and 12
December 1996, wherein all the States were directed to constitute “expert committee" to
assess sustainable capacity of sawmills and timber based industries in the States It also
directed the Central Government to constitute the CEC as envisaged by Section 3,
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 to monitor implementation of the court orders and
examine the application of the sawmill owners. It must be remembered that the court had
already made it clear that any non-forest activity, mining activity and sawmills, within
the forest area without the “prior approval of the Central Government’ must cease
forthwith. T.N. Godavarman II particularly dealt with the sawmills, veneer and plywood
operating in the forest areas.

 In T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India10 , the Kudremukh Iron Ore Co. Ltd., which
was working in the Kudremukh National Park, applied for the renewal of the lease for a
period of 20 years. This Forest National Park was declared to be a reserved area in i960
and 198- under a notification issued under Section 35(1), Forest Act, 1927. To solve the
dispute, a Forest Advisory Committee (FAC) was set up under Section 3 FCA which
recommended that mining may be allowed for a period of four years, i.e. up to 2005, UP
to which the company can exhaust the already broken up area. The company was already
working in the park area before the commencement of the FCA. The Supreme Court
declared that the recommendation of the FAC be accepted. The court ruled that whether
it is a case of first grant or renewal, the compliance of Section 2 FCA is necessary as a
condition precedent.

 In T.N. Godavarman11, the petitioner challenged the allotment of land of 15 hectares by

way of lease to M/s Maruti Coal and power Ltd. for setting up coal washery. It was
claimed that the land leased out was a forest land, which could not be used for non-forest

9
(2002) 9 SCC 502
10
(2002) 10 SCC 606, AIR 2003 SC 724
11
(2006)5SCC28

9|Page
 purpose, for coal washery. The court reiterated that the definition given to the term
“forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning Thus, it covers all
statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise, for
the purpose of Section 2(1), Forest Act, 1927. Taking a practical approach, “an area
measuring 10 hectares or more having an average number of 200 trees per hectare ought
to be treated as forest”. Moreover, it includes any area recorded as forest in the
government record irrespective of the ownership. The matter related to the disputed land
was referred to the CEC who gave three reports on three different occasions, and
declared that the land in question was a non-forest land. Therefore, it was declared that
the petitioner did not come to the court with clean hands but with ulterior motives, the
court dismissed the petition with costs and also warned the petitioner not to use
“recuperate language” in the pleadings.12With reference to conservation, preservation
and protection of forests and ecology and use of forest for non-forest purpose, following
principles were laid down by the Supreme Court:

1) The principal aim of the forest policy is to ensure environmental stability and
maintenance of ecological balance including atmos-pheric equilibrium which are
vital for sustenance of all life forms, human, animal and plant. The derivation of
direct economic bene¬fit must be subordinated to this principal aim. The forest
policy has a statutory flavour. The non-fulfilment of the aforesaid principle would
be violative of Articles 14 and 11 of the Constitution.
2) Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA)
created by the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) with the occurrence of
the CEC was essential. It shall allocate money to the States for their site specific
schemes out of Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAF). This fund has been
created having regard to the principles of inter-generational justice.
3) If it is at all necessary for economic development to use forest for non-forest
purpose, then before permission is granted by the CEC, there should be some
scheme (including short term as well as long term measures) for regeneration of
forests. Constitution of CAMPA under Section 3(3), Environment (Protection) Act,
1986 is 1 laudable step in this direction.

12
S.C. Shastri ; Environment Law, Fifteenth Edn

10 | P a g e
 4) Money received towards “compensatory afforestation”, additional compensatory
afforestation, penal compensatory afforestation, net present value (NPV) of forest
land, catchment area, treatment plan fund, etc. shall be deposited in CAF.
5) Fund received from the user agencies shall be used exclusively for undertaking the
conservation activities.
6) Artificial regeneration activity must be started at the earliest. Local and indigenous
species must be used in plantations.
7) Independent system of concurrent monitoring and evaluation should be evolved.
8) .Forest management planning involves a blend of ecological, economic and social
systems with the economic and social sides of planning.

Levying of appropriate NPV on the user agency of such diverted forests land as the price
of such forest use is legal. All projects for use of forest for non-forest purpose shall be
required to pay NPV except government projects like hospitals, dispensaries and schools.
In a recently decided case, the Supreme Court allowed the application to fell 1041 khair
trees, subject to the condition that the applicant shall provide funds to the Forest
Department of the State of J&K for planting and maintenance of khair plants, at least ten
times the number of trees proposed to be felled for execution of project. 13
 Similarly, the court permitted the use of forest land for the construction of Express
Metro Link to airport in Delhi with the condition that “the compensatory afforestation”
should be carried out near the impact area. And further it was suggested that
translocation, if feasible, of the trees be done instead of felling of trees. 14
 It was further directed that NPV of the sale of trees must be deposited in Compensatory
Afforestation Fund. Further, 5 per cent of the project will also be deposited for the
Management Board for conservation and development of the area.15
 This amendment has also made it a fundamental duty of the citizens “to protect and
improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife....”16
 If licenced sawmill is located at a distance of 8 kms from forest area in an approved
industrial area, it can be permitted to run17

13
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, (2012) 12 SCC 96
14
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, (2012) 13 SCC 438
15
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, (2013) 11 SCC 466
16
Art- 51-A (g)
17
TN Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India(2010)6 SCC 610

11 | P a g e
 Analysis

Has the Supreme Court Order Had the Desired Effect?

Godavarman Thirumulpad filed his case against the Union of India for the purpose of
preserving a forest in his home region. The Supreme Court took the case and used it as
justification for implementing and administering national forest policy to a degree far beyond
the original scope of the case.

The Supreme Court made interpretations and issued orders that apply to all states and forests
in India, not just the forests of Godavarman’s home region. The Supreme Court was
attempting to address the very important problem of forest management, or mismanagement,
in India. Forest cover in the country was decreasing, and unless India quickly adopted
sustainable forest practices, the country’s ecological stability and biodiversity would suffer
immensely to the detriment of future generations. The Supreme Court recognized the
importance of forest preservation and observed the increasing destruction and degradation of
forest land. The Supreme Court noticed that those national and state organizations
responsible for forest management were failing in their duties. In light of national and state
governments’ inaction, the Supreme Court’s unusual assumption of powers seems justified,
especially given India’s alarming statistics on forest cover. The Forest Survey of India (FSI)
last reported India’s forest cover as 20.64% of the country’s geographic area.18With the goal
of increasing the national forest cover to 33% by 2012, India still seems underforested.19
Moreover, the methodology behind this statistic suggests that the figure of 20.64% is
meretricious. The measurement of forest area breaks down as follows:

Very dense forest (more than 70% forest
cover
Moderately dense forest (40-70% forest
cover)
Open forest (10-40% forest cover
1.56% of the geographical area
10.32% of the geographical area
8.76% of the geographical area

Total forest cover: 20.64% (includes mangroves) 0.14%of the

geographic area

18
State of Forest Report, 2003, Forest Survey of India
19
National Forest Policy of India (1988).

12 | P a g e
FSI reports that 8.76% of India’s forest cover is open forest, but what is “open forest?” With
a minimum area of 1 hectare (or 2.471 acres) for measurement, land with a canopy density of
only 10% hardly seems to qualify as “forest.”

Furthermore, FSI does not distinguish between private and public land, i.e., it does not
distinguish between forests and fruit orchards or tea and coffee plantations. The survey
counts all perennial woody vegetation with a canopy density above 10%, regardless of its
ownership or makeup. Open forest could be too thinly covered to be considered forest in
measurement of India’s ecological health. Because FSI’s idea of open forest includes sparsely
vegetated land in its total count and because it fails to distinguish among different types of
vegetation and ownership, the real forest cover of India could be as low as 12%, a far greater
distance from the national goal of 33%. Given the problems with the current statistics and the
alarmingly low percentage of real forest cover, the Supreme Court’s intervention in forest
policy was, at least in this respect, justified. National and timely action was necessary to curb
deforestation.

In many ways, the Supreme Court’s aggressive stance toward forest management has had
some positive effects. India already had environmental laws to manage forests and
encroachments, but sub-competence, insufficient staffing, and corruption prevented the
executive branch and its underlying agencies like the MoEF from enforcing policies and
adapting them to India’s changing environmental needs.

Hence, the Supreme Court’s radical orders and its wide assumption of powers slowed and
possibly reversed two ecologically dangerous trends: that of an ineffective govern ment and
that of decreasing forest cover. By so aggressively and controversially addressing forest
issues, the Supreme Court has also raised awareness concerning India’s forest cover.
Although its hastiness caused many predictable and perhaps avoidable effects, these efforts
have in many ways benefited India’s environment and given advocacy groups a renewed
opportunity to protect India’s forests. The Supreme Court’s actions have also addressed
negligent forest management. India recognizes that the constitutional right to life depends on
the right to a clean and healthy environment. To enforce the right to life, the government has
the legal responsibility to effectively conserve forests and biodiversity. The government’s
past inaction and inadequate response to environmental issues can be viewed not as exercises
of executive discretion, but as violations of law that would warrant the Supreme Court’s
intervention. From this perspective, the Supreme Court’s policies have attempted to uphold

13 | P a g e
the right to life when it was being seriously neglected. Although decisive action may have
been necessary, the Supreme Court’s orders made demands far beyond its control.

The Supreme Court assumed too much power too quickly to effectively manage it. Its orders
may have been logically sound, though incomplete, from a policy perspective, but from a
practical perspective, they demanded too much from India’s weak state and local
governments. The Supreme Court did not exercise sufficient caution in extending its role to
directly oversee forestry issues. Despite the Supreme Court’s defense of the right to a clean
and healthy environment as part of the right to life, the Court’s aggressive policymaking
violated people’s right to life by severely disrupting the timber industry, i.e., people’s right to
a livelihood, and sparking violent action against tribal peoples and alleged forest encroachers.
The Supreme Court could have limited its decisions to the scope of the original Godavarman
case or even delegated responsibility for handling certain issues to government agencies.
Slowing down its intervention in forest management or limiting its geographical scope might
have prevented states from hastily and unjustly evicting tribals from their homelands in
response to an order by the MoEF. So while the Supreme Court has in some ways improved
India’s approach to forest issues, its aggressive role in the process has disrupted the balance
of powers among government organizations and caused severe economic and social turmoil.
By assuming so much power, the Supreme Court has perpetuated an incompetent government
bureaucracy that defers to the Supreme Court for policymaking.

The MoEF’s recent efforts to correct its past mistakes concerning tribal encroachments
suggest that the government is making the necessary adjustments to ease the economically
and socially harmful effects of the Supreme Court’s orders. But the process of building the
bureaucratic infrastructure, which hung loosely behind the Supreme Court for so many years,
will require more time. Even though the MoEF is improving its policy toward tribals, the
Godavarman case has provided it with ample opportunity to expand its powers, and it has
vigorously done so.

The centralization of forest management bypasses much state inefficiency. It also increases
the distance between the administrators of forest policy and the tribal people who are affected
by it and who are inextricably involved with forest protection. The Supreme Court’s
“continuing mandamus” in the case also leaves open the possibility for further judicial
activism that might interfere with the progress of other agencies toward fair and productive
forest and human rights policies.

14 | P a g e
 Conclusion
When the Supreme Court received the Godavarman case in 1995, India’s environmental
policy was in dire need of reform. The Supreme Court’s actions, although extreme, addressed
an issue vital to the human and natural health of the country and gave heart to advocates of
forest protection. However, in raising awareness of environmental issues and bringing them
to the forefront of national and judicial concern, the Supreme Court began the disquieting
practice of “continuing mandamus.” In hearing over 800 interlocutory applications since
1996, the Supreme Court has extended its involvement in forest issues and thereby increased
the country’s dependence on the Supreme Court for forest management. This dependence on
a judicial institution that has already exceeded the boundaries of its responsibilities has been
further complicated by the lack of monitoring of the Supreme Court’s orders and the
vagueness of the legislative and executive roles regarding forest issues. With its micro-
management of forest issues and the increasing number of Supreme Court-instituted
organizations, the potential for conflict is hardly over.
As the centralization of power to government organizations like the MoEF increases, will the
executive, legislature, and judiciary succeed in cooperatively managing India’s forests, or
will the Supreme Court’s far-reaching assumption of powers clash with the central
government’s policies? And amidst the delegation, redistribution, and reorganization of
responsibilities and powers, what will happen to India’s forests and the tribal people who
inhabit them? The Supreme Court’s aggressive forest management has incurred large
economic and social costs. It remains to be seen whether the Court can successfully transfer
control to the appropriate governmental organizations, whether it can effectively manage the
organizations it has formed, and whether it will avoid further economic and social disruption
while attempting to restore India’s forest cover..

15 | P a g e
 References
Bibliographies:

1. Shanthakumar S, Introduction to Environmental Law, 2nd edition, 2008, Wadhwa &

Company Nagpur
2. S.C. Shastri ; Environment Law, Fifteenth Edn

Websites:

 http://en.idi.org.il/analysis/articles/the-significance-of-international-recognition-of-
the-state-of-palestine
 http://www.una.org.uk/content/safer-world-state-recognition-and-self-determination
 https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/fdfa/foreign-policy/international-law/respect-
promotion/the-recognition-of-states-and-governments.html
 http://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/international-law/recognition-important-
issues-in-international-law.php
 http://www.markedbyteachers.com/university-degree/law/what-is-the-importance-of-
recognition-in-the-international-legal-system.html
 http://www.bu.edu/law/journalsarchive/international/volume27n1/documents/worster.
pdf
 https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/field/field_document/Meetin
g%20Summary%20Recognition%20of%20States.pdf
 http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199228423.001.000
1/acprof-9780199228423-chapter-1

16 | P a g e