Directs Time-Bound Compliance with Godavarman
Judgment
On March
4, the Supreme Court strongly criticized States and Union Territories (UTs) for
failing to form expert committees to identify forest areas, despite its
previous directives. The Court warned that Chief Secretaries and Administrators
of non-compliant States/UTs would be held personally liable if the
committees are not constituted within a month and the identification process is
not completed within six months, as per Rule 16(1) of the Van (Sanrakshan
Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023.
A bench
of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih directed:
- States/UTs that have not yet
formed expert committees must do so within one month.
- The committees must complete
their work within six months and submit reports to the Union
Government.
- The Union shall consolidate
the data and present it before the Court.
- The Registrar (Judicial)
will notify all Chief Secretaries and Administrators of UTs.
The Court
made it clear that any failure to comply "in letter and spirit"
would result in personal liability for top officials.
Concerns Over Compensatory Afforestation
The
directive follows concerns that States and UTs are using forest land for compensatory
afforestation without completing the identification process. Petitioners,
including retired Indian Forest Service (IFS) officials, argued that
this practice is reducing actual forest cover.
Senior
Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan emphasized that when land from contiguous
forests is diverted, the entire ecosystem is disrupted. He
highlighted the 27-year delay in identifying forest land and urged the
Court to prevent further destruction until the process is complete.
Advocate Prashant
Bhushan echoed these concerns, stating that non-compliance since the 1996
TN Godavarman judgment has led to large-scale forest diversion.
Union’s Response & Compliance Status
Additional
Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union, admitted that
while 33 States/UTs have complied with the 1996 judgment, West
Bengal, Ladakh, J&K, and Lakshadweep have not even formed expert
committees. She noted that J&K and Ladakh had logistical challenges due to
recent reorganization but have now begun the process.
Regarding
Rule 16 compliance, only Sikkim, Gujarat, and Odisha had
completed the identification exercise. The ASG sought time-bound
compliance, emphasizing that it aligns with India’s forest policy and
the Court’s mandate.
Court’s Final Observations
While the
petitioners claimed that compensatory afforestation on "unidentified"
forest land was reducing overall forest cover, the Court refrained from passing
an order based on assumptions. However, it reiterated that no steps should
be taken that reduce forest land without compensatory afforestation.
Ultimately,
the bench ordered all non-compliant States/UTs to strictly adhere
to previous directions within the stipulated timeframe.
Case
Title: Ashok
Kumar Sharma, Indian Forest Service (Retd) & Ors. v. Union of India &
Anr., W.P.(C) No. 1164/2023
