Forests Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation 173

This transter, without affecting the State authority to legislate,

empoweredthe Central Government to act directly in managing India's
ests. Since 1976, the Central Government has taken three major
xtions with regard to forests - the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980,
amendment in 1988, and the adoption of arevised National Forest
its
Policy in 1988.
The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 had three major objectives:
heck deforestation, to check diversion of forest land for "non
purpose, and afforestation of the waste lands. Under the Act,
forest"approval
of the Central Government is made a mandatory
prior
ondition before State Government can make an order dereserving
any
reserved forest or portion thereof or allow any body to use reserved
more often then not the
forest for non-forest purpose. However, followed.
guidelines relating to nonforest purpose were not strictly
The 1988 Amendment made it clear that the assignment of forest
not controlled by
land by lease to any private person or agency
Governmentor destruction of natural growth of trees for the purpose
"non-forest"
osfforestation requires prior approval (Sec. 2). The
purpose defined to mean the
clearing of forest for raising commercial
and, a purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include
rops,
any work relating
to or ancillary to conservation, development and
management of forests and wildlife e.g. establishment of check posts,
construction of bridges, dams, pipelines, etc.
wireless communication,
Government to appoint an
The Act also empowers the Central
approval under the above
advisory committee to advise on the grantofAct also prescribes penalty
mentioned provision and to make rules. The Act, which is a simple
of the
for contravention of the provisions
imprisonment up to 15 days.
exercise of the powers conferred under Sec. 4 of the Act, the
In (Conservation) Rules, 1981.
Central Government made the Forest
Under the rules,the advisory committee is required to consider various
whether the forest land proposed
matters while tendering its advice viz. part of a nature reserve,
forms
to be used for non-forest purpose
wildlife sanctuary, biosphere reserve, etc.; whether the
national park,
forest land is for agricultural purpose or for the rehabilitation
use of any
residences by reason of any river valley
of persons displaced from their
or hydroelectric project; whether the State Government has certified
alternatives and that no other alternatives
that it has considered all other
circumstances are feasible; and, whether the State Government/
in the its cost for acquisition of
other authority undertakes to provide at thereof. While tendering
afforestation
land or an equivalent area and
 174 Law and Environment

the advice, the committee may also suggest any conditions or restrictie
on the use of any forest land for any nonforest purpose which, in
opinion, would minimise adverse environmental impact.
The Forest Conservation Act has not done much for th.
protection and conservation of forests. The Act merely canalised t
power concerning forest land use, shifting it from States to
The Act is aimed at preserving what remains of natural Centre.
providing restrictions for dereservation of forests by the Statesforests by
prior approval of the Centre. It does not take into without
managerial, administrative and legal needs of account the
afforestation
provisions as contained in Sec. 2 go against the provisions rather its
of
afforestation in the National Forest Policy, 1988.
Forest Policy
The first Forest Policy of 1894 made two major
enunciations: firet
permanent cultivation was tocome before forestry i.e. the claims of fha
former were considered stronger than the claims of forest
preservation:
and secondly, the public (material) benefit was the sole object of forest
administration.
The first forest policy aimed to promote the general well being
of the people in the country and to fulfill the needs of the people. The
emphasis was on the use of forests for commercial purposes rather
then forest conservation. The policy denied recognition to the
legitimacy of conventional conservation practices of local communities
and favoured regulation of the rights and privileges of people living in
and around forests. This was done in the name of 'public benefit'.
Further, the policy allowed unchecked diversion of forest-land to
agriculture and other uses
The Forest Policy enunciated in 1952 made good the inadequacies
of the old policy substantially. It recognized that forests are valuable
both in the physical field such as prevention of soil erosion, and in the
economic field of development of agriculture, industry, etc.
The 1952 policy, despite its avowed objectives, emphasized
exploitation of forests for commercial purposes. Under it maintaining
a sustained supplyof wood for industry was considered a vital concern
of the State. It was not surprising therefore that the State went to the
extent of subsidizing the industrial consumers the forest products in
the name of national interest. The approach of the State continued to
reflect a lack faith in the capacity of people to manage or protect their
forest resources without State intervention and support, people were
in fact seen as a major threat to forest.
 Forests Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation 175

The continued denudation of forests, rising demand, and tensions

between rural communities/ forest dwellers
and forest departments
necessitated afresh look at the 1952 Policy. The State came under
increasing pressurein order to involve people in the protection and
management of forest resources and therefore to reorient its earlier
policies.
Anew National Forest Policy of 1988 aimed to ensure
balance.
anvironmental stability and maintenance of ecological provision
Increasing the torest cover, conservation of total biodiversity,
of fodder, fuel, etc. for areas adjoining forest to prevent forest depletion
produce for the sake
andprotection and improvement of minor forest management
of tribal people are the essential attributes of the forestforest dwelling
envisaged under the national policy. Thus, the welfare of the policy.
communities has been accepted as a major objective of
increasing
The other basic objectives of the new policy include: programs;
forestry
forest cover through massive afforestation and social national needs;
essential
increasing the productivity of forests to meetproduce and maximizing
encouraging efficient utilization of forest movement with
substitution of wood; and creating a massive people's
and to minimize
involvement of women for achieving these objectives
pressure on existing forests.
Further, the 1988 policy stated the construction of dams, etc.,
mining and industrial development, and expansion of agriculture should
be consistent with the needs for conservation
of trees and forests. Projects
provide in their investment
which inolve such diversion should at least
afforestation.
budget, funds for regeneration/compulsory
quite happy
Activists working among tribal communities were
they were sure that they
after the issue of the forest policy resolution, as
lands. However, the 1988
would be permitted to use degraded forest disallowing lease to any
amendment to the Forest Conservation Act, by
approval of the Central
nongovernment agency except with the prior land to
Government, has nullified all the platitudes of giving degraded
of afforestation.
tribal cooperatives and organisations for the purpose
Management
In pursuance of the revised policy, Joint Forest which a
Scheme has been launched in various States of India, in
forest
partnership arrangement has been set up between the State
departments and the local communities. The Central Government
issued a circular in June 1990, which suggested the States to involve
voluntary agencies/ NGOs with the State Forest Departments and the
local village communities in revival, restoration and development of
degraded forests.
 found in Se
Sug
176 Law and Environment

Case Lavw
The assertion that current law and policy governing forests
wholesale destruction of1forests for megaprojects but
or facilitate potentially less harmful use of forest does not allow
peoples is supported by the following case.
In Banwvasi Sewa Ashram v State of
productsencour
by laogecal
(1992) 1SCC 117, the Supreme Court
U.P. AIR 1987
other backward people living within theacknowl edged that SC 374%
jungle had been acdivasis and
around for collecting the requirements such as using
flowers, small timber, fuelwood, etc, for theirfruits, vegetables, jungles
gave detailed directions
the adivasis and other safeguarding and livel
protecting
backward people who were
ih ood.
the Thefodder
court ,
the forest land by NTPC (National Thermal Power being interests of
ousted fron
The court permitted the acquisition of land
NTPC agreed to provide certain facilities to the by
In approving the advent of a super thermal ousted
Corporation
NTPC,
only Ltd.).
after
plant in a forest dwellers.
extended to a forest area, the court
growth, as also for provisions of highlighted that for location
that
great demand in the country for improved living
energy such as facilities, ithere
ndustrial
is a
In the above-mentioned case, the
a middle course. However, the
electricity.
Supreme Court tried to
reflected in the judgment. Further,prodevelopment adopt
the court did notapproach was clearly
issue in the petitioner's claim whether the local address the
claim to the forest arising from their
on the right to life dependence people
on the
primary
could assert a
In the Dehradun
forest,
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution based
held that continued Quarryingin Case (AIR 1988 SC 2187), the court
mining the
Act. Moreover, the court Valley violated the Forest
(Conservation)
of the Act to merely went beyond the
Valley be reforested. conserve forest and issued orders torequirements
ensure that
In Hyderabad
Law Times, 119), HighAbrasives &Minerals v Govt. of A.P. (1990,
Court Forest
mining lease is not emphatically stated that the grant of
clear forest growth. tantamount to grant of
The mining lease has stillpermission to cut and
provisions of Forest Act, 1980, before the got to abide by the
forest growth in the forest. lessee cuts and removes the
In
the courtAmbica Quarry
held that after WVorks State of Gujarat (AlIR 1987 SC 1073),
v
preexistingof mining leases commencement
in forest can be
of the Forest Act,
renewal
approval Central made only after obtaining
Government.
 F'orests Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation 177

In Pradeep Krishan v UOIAR 1997 SC 2040, anotification of

p Government permitting collection of tendu' leaves from
sanctuariesand national parks by villagers and tribals living around
the

theboundaries thereof with the object of maintenance of their

traditionalrights was challenged on the groundthat it is causing damage
the flora and fauna and wildlife of the area and resulting in the
to
shrinkageof;forest cover. The Supreme Court refused to quash or set
asidethe notification and thus protected the traditional rights of the
tribals.BBut it suggested:
«Tf one of the reasons for the shrinkage is the entry of villagers
and tribals living in and around the sanctuaries and the national
narks. there can be no doubt that urgent steps must be taken to
prevent any destruction or damage to the environment, the flora
and fauna and wildlife in these areas."
Supreme Court in the
This case was relied upon by the Legal Defence Fund v
Environment
eibseguent case of Animal and
AIR 1997 SC 1071, in which the M.P. Government allowed
IO
tribal people in Taltodoh reservoir
fshing permits to the displaced action of the M.P. Government was
within Pench National Park. The' grounds. The Supreme Court
while
challenged on environmental natives versus development held
balancing the traditional rights of
fragile ecology
be made to preserve the
that while every attempt mustthe tiger reserve, the rights of the tribals
protect
of the forest area, and body and soul together must also
receive
living in the area to keep
proper consideration.
Pradeep Krishan, the Supreme Court further observed
ideal
Following is far less than the
cover in the country
that the total forest land. We cannot, therefore,
afford any
minimum of 1/3rd of the total cover in our country. The State
forest
further shrinkage in the to act with a sense of
urgency in
Government is, therefore, expectedand 51-A (g) of theConstitution.
48-A
matters enjoined by Articles on the
submitted that the Supreme Court in these two cases on the
It is tribals and
hand protected the right to livelihood of the the ecology and
one
concern for the protection of
other hand showed its in consonance with the
concept
torest. This approach of the court is Union of IndiavKamath Holiday
in
of sustainable development Again,
disagreeing with the argument that the
Resorts AIR 1997 SC 1228,
visiting tourists
lease for a snack bar and testaurant was necessary for
in the reserved forest, the Supreme Court observed:
 Tefe

d in Se

178 Law and Environment

"AIl current streanms of thought lead

towards protection
environment and preservation of forest wealth. On of
hand there are ddemands in justification of other the other
use telling on
the forests. Abalance would have to be struck in a
dispassionate manner." cool and

In Senmathav State of A.P. AIR 1997 SC 3297, the

observed that the Constitution gave the word
meaning to include a tract of land covered with trees.forest' Apex Court
an
and undergrowth intermingled with trees with pastures, be
extensive
shrubs, veget
growth or man-made forestation. Such a wide meaning is in it natural ation
with both the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the
Protection Act, 1986 and was necessary for the conf ormit
Environmenty
land, maintenance of ecology and prevention of preservation
of forest
degradation.
environmental
TN. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD VÜNION OF ÎNDIA
("FOREST CONSERVATION CASE") AIR 1997 SC 1228:
(1998) 9 SCC 632; (2000) 10 SCC579)
The high watermark in the forest
protection measures is the TN
Godavarman case in which the Supreme Court took stock of the
entire forest scenario in the country. The court's
interpretation of
the expressions "forest' and "forest land' was timely.
In this case, the Supreme Court's attention is drawn
towards the
degradation and degeneration of forests on account of the various "non
forest activities" (viz. running of saw mills including veneer or plywood
mills and mining of minerals) carried on in forests with permission of
the State Governments. The court held that "all ongoing activity within
any forest in any State throughout the country, without prior permission
of the Central Government, must stop forthwith".
While totally banning the falling of trees in State of Arunachal
Pradesh, the court directed that falling of trees in all other forests to
remain suspended in accordance with working plan of State Govt., as
approved by Central Govt. Further, movement of cut trees and timber
trom any of the seven North-Eastern States to anyother State is te "e
completelybanned. All the States must constitute Expert Committees
and submit reports to the Supreme Court. Specific directions for the
States ofJ& K, U.P. and W.B. and TN. were also issued.
 Forests Wildlife and Biodiversity Conservation 179

The court further held that notwthstanding the closure of any

mills or other woodbased industry pursuant to this order, the
workersemployed in such units will continue to be paid their full
oluments due and shall not be retrenched or removed from service
isr this reason. The Ministry of Railways is required to file an affidavit
oiving full particulars including the extent of wood consumed by them,
the source of supply of wood, and the steps taken by them to find
alternatives to the use of wood. These orders and directions were to
continue till further orders of the Court.
The Supreme Court observed:
The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to
check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological
imbalance; and, therefore, the provisions made therein for the
conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith,
must apply toall forests irrespective of the nature of ownership
or classification thereof. The word forest" must be understood
according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all
statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved,
Act.
protected or otherwise for the purposes of Sec. 2() of the
include
The term "forest land", occurring in Sec. 2, will not only
area
forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any
of the
recorded as forest in the Government Record irrespective
ownership.
Power Committee to
The court proceeded to constitute a High
of its orders in the
oversee the strict and faithful implementation should
Committee
North Eastern region. Directions were given that this
transit or lying in mills
prepare an inventory of all timber, whether in timber products
and to examine whether the use or sale of timber or under its
could be permitted through the State Forest Corporations produce,
overall supervision. That the collection of minor forest
including bamboo, could be exempted from the ban, is a significant
holding of the court in the context of welfare of tribals and other
forest dwellers.
On 17 September 1998, the Central Ministry of Environment
and Forests constituted the Arunachal Pradesh Forest Protection
Authority under Sec. 3(3) of the Environment Act of 1986 with powers
to protect the environment and forests in the State.