Forrest conservation

Act, 1980
By –
SECTION- D ( GROUP – 1)
ESHITA
MOHNISH
MIHIR
SHRUT
A nation that destroys its soils destroys itself. Forests are the lungs of our land , purifying
the air and giving fresh strength to our people.
 Forest ( Conservation ) Act, 1980
• This Act has been passed with a view to check deforestation which has been taking place in the
country on a large scale and which had cause ecological imbalance and thus led to environmental
deterioration . The President of India promulgated the Forest ( Conservation) Ordinance on 25
October, 1980. It simply aims at putting restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest –
land for laudable purpose as is evident from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act, which
reads :
1. Deforestation causes ecological imbalance and leads to environmental deterioration. Deforestation
had been taking place On a large scale in the country and it had caused widespread concern
2. With a view to checking further deforestation , the President promulgated on 25 th October, 1980,
the forest ( Conservation) Ordinance , 1980
 Scope and Application
• This Act extends to whole of India except the States of Jammu and
Kashmir , which has its own State Act. The Forest ( Conservation) Act,
1980 came into force on 25th October, 1980, is, the date on which the
Forest (Conservation) Ordinance, 1980 was promulgated.
 Restriction on the Dereservation of Forests or Use of
Forest – land for Non- Forest Purpose
• Section 2 of the Act deals with restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest- land for non- forest
purposes. It provides that not with standing anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State
, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with prior approval of the Central Government, any
order directing-
i. That any reserved forest declared under any law for the time being in force in the State or any portion thereof,
shall cease to be reserved;
ii. That any forest land 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 organization not owned , managed or controlled by Government;
iii. That any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non- forest purpose
iv. That any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or
portion , for the purpose of using it for afforestation.
 Non- forest Purpose

• “ Non – forest purpose “ means the breaking up of clearing or any forest- land or
portion thereof for –
a) The cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, plams , oil- bearing plants, horticulture
crops or medicinal plants; or
b) Any purpose other than reforestation,
but does not include any works relating or ancillary to conservation, development and
management of forests and wild- life , namely , the establishment of check- posts, fire
lines wireless communications and construction of fencing , bridges and culverts ,
dams , waterholes, trench marks , boundary marks , pipelines or other like purposes
 Appel to National Green Tribunal ( Section
2A)
• Any person aggrieved by an order or decision of the State Government or other authority made
section 2 , on or after the commencement of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, may file
an appeal to the National Green Tribunal established under section 3 of the National Green
Tribunal Act, 2010, in accordance with the provisions of that Act.
• Constitution of Advisory Committee- The Central Government may constitute a Committee
consisting of such number of persons as it may deem fit to advise that Government with regard
to
i. The grant of approval under section 2 ( as explained above ) and
ii. Any other matter connected with the conservation of forests which may be referred to it by
the Central Government.
 Rule 3 of the Forest ( Conservation) Rules, 2003 provides for the composition of the
Committee. It says that the Committee shall be composed of the following members-

i. Director- General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests- Member ( He

will act as chairperson in the absence of Director General of Forests).
ii. Additional Director – General of Forests, Ministry of Environment and Forests-
Member ( He will act as chairperson in the absence of Director General of Forests).
iii. Additional Commissioner ( Soil Conservation), Ministry of Agriculture- Member
iv. Three eminent experts in forestry and allied discipline Environment, Scientists( non-
officials ) – Member
v. Inspector – General of Forests( Forests Conservation ), Ministry of Environment
and Forests- Member- Secretary.
Penalty for Contravention of the Provisions of
the Acts ( Section 3A)
• Section 3A of the act provides that whoever contravenes or abets the
contravention of any of the provisions of section 2 , shall be punishable
with simple imprisonment for a period , which may extend to fifteen days.
A perusal of this section shows that the Act contemplates only the
punishment of simple imprisonment and it does not contemplate any
punishment in terms of fine.
 Offences by Authorities or Government
Departments ( Section 3B)
• The Act provides that where any offence under this Act has been committed
a) By any department of Government, the head of the department or
b) By any authority , every person who , at the time the offence was committed, was directly in charge
of , and was responsible to, the authority for the conduct of the business of the authority as well as
the authority,
Shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished
accordingly. However, the Head of the Department or any other person referred to above shall not be
liable to any punishment if he Proves that-
i. The offence was committed without his knowledge ; or
ii. He exercised all diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.
Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a Department of Government or
ant authority referred to above and it is proved that the offence has been committed with
the consent or connivance of , or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any officer
other than the Head of the Department, or in case of an authority any person shall also be
deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

 Power to Make Rules.
• Section 4 of the Act vests the Central Government with the powers to make rules
for carrying out the provisions of this Act. Every rule made under this Act shall be
laid , as soon as may be after it is made , before each house of the Parliament ,
while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in
one session or in two or more successive sessions.
Forest Conservation and Judicial Attitude
• In India , the judiciary has shown deep concern for the forest conservation. The
judiciary has not only played a pivotal role in a manner to interpret the forest laws to
protect the forest and environment but it also has shown judicial activism by
entertaining public interest litigations under articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court and High Courts while protecting environment and promoting
sustainable development have delivered many important judgments.
• Environmental protection: the judicial approach
There are numbers of the following judgments which clearly highlight the active
role of judiciary in environmental protection these are follows:
(A) The Right To A Wholesome Environment:-
Charan Lal Sahu Case:
The Supreme Court in this case said, the right to life guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution includes the right to a wholesome environment.[xvii]
Damodhar Rao v. S. 0. Municipal Corporation Hyderabad:
The Court resorted to the Constitutional mandates under Articles 48A and 51A(g) to
support this reasoning and went to the extent of stating that environmental pollution
would be a violation of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty as enshrined
in Article 21 of the Constitution[xviii].
(B) Public Nuisance: The Judicial Response:-
Ratlam Municipal Council v. Vardhichand [xix]:
The judgment of the Supreme Court in instant case is a land mark in the history of judicial
activism in upholding the social justice component of the rule of law by fixing liability on
statutory authorities to discharge their legal obligation to the people in abating public
nuisance and making the environmental pollution free even if there is a budgetary
constraints., J. Krishna Iyer observed that,” social justice is due to and therefore the
people must be able to trigger off the jurisdiction vested for their benefit to any public.
(C) Judicial Relief Encompasses Compensation To Victims:-
Delhi gas leak case-  M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [xx]:
In instant case, the Supreme Court laid down two important principles of law:
1) The power of the Supreme Court to grant remedial relief for a proved infringement of a
fundamental right (in case if Article21) includes the power to award compensation.
2) The judgment opened a new frontier in the Indian jurisprudence by introducing a new “no
fault” liability standard (absolute liability) for industries engaged in hazardous activities which
has brought about radical changes in the liability and compensation laws in India. The new
standard makes hazardous industries absolutely liable from the harm resulting from its
activities.
(D) Fundamental Right To Water:-
The fundamental right to water has evolved in India, not through legislative action but
through judicial interpretation. In Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India and Ors., the
Supreme Court of India upheld that “Water is the basic need for the survival of human beings
and is part of the right to life and human rights as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution
of India … and the right to healthy environment and to sustainable development are
fundamental human rights implicit in the right to life[xxi].
 Conclusion
A perusal of the above mentioned decisions clearly show that judiciary lives
to protect and preserve the forests. At the same time it has never been
antithetical to the development . In fact the whole approach of the judiciary
is in consonance with the sustainable development and thus it must be
appreciated.
Thank you