Forest n. large area covered with trees

Hearing a batch of petitions that challenged the 2023 amendments to Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA) 1980, a Supreme Court bench earlier this week stated that states and UTs must go by the 'dictionary definition' of 'forest' - all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise - to determine whether any work can be approved on a land. Crucially, it directed GoI to get information from states regarding lands identified as forests based on lexical interpretation, as outlined in the 1996 Godavarman ruling, and that no zoos or safari parks can be set up in such areas without the court's nod. The 1996 ruling expanded the definition of forests beyond those notified or recorded officially. It directed states to form committees to review what could be classified as forests as per dictionary definition. Only two states - Kerala and Assam - submitted theirs. According to experts, they are shoddy and lack ground-truthing and cadastral surveys.

Yet, without crucial data, Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 2023 was passed. Petitioners in the case claim it would result in declassification of over 1,97,000 sq km of forests protected under the 1996 definition. They also rightly argued that setting up zoos and safaris in such ecologically important areas would open floodgates for the commercialisation of forests. The 2023 law has also been criticised as its cornerstone is compensatory afforestation, even though it can't compensate for ecological costs of destroying a mixed forest.

The court ruling upholds the importance of transparency and accountability. States must provide data, and GoI must review them with an open mind. But, above all, both must consider forests a public good and commit to protecting them.