Supreme Court Directs Mapping of Sacred Groves in Rajasthan

On December 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of India mandated the Forest Department of Rajasthan to map all sacred groves using ground and satellite methods. This initiative aims to identify these groves based on their cultural and ecological significance. The ruling intends to classify these areas as ‘forests’ and designate them as ‘community reserves’ under the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972. This decision has stirred controversy as it contradicts the provisions of the Forest Rights Act of 2006, which seeks to empower local communities over forest management.

About Sacred Groves

• Sacred groves, also known as ‘orans’ in Rajasthan, are areas of forest land traditionally protected by local communities.
• They play a vital role in cultural identity and biodiversity conservation.
• These groves are governed by customary laws that often prohibit resource extraction.
• They are linked to spiritual beliefs and serve as repositories of medicinal plants.
• India is home to an estimated 100,000 sacred groves, making it the country with the highest number globally.

Legal Context

• In the landmark case of T.N. Godavarman v. Union of India, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of ‘forest land’ to include any area recorded as forest, regardless of ownership.
• This definition led to the identification of sacred groves as potential ‘deemed forests’.
• An expert committee in Rajasthan previously classified these groves based on specific criteria, but the Supreme Court’s Central Empowered Committee disagreed, advocating for a broader interpretation.

Community Reserves Defined

• The Wildlife Protection Act of 2002 established community reserves as a new category of Protected Areas. These reserves can be designated on community or private land where locals agree to conserve habitats.
• The community is responsible for managing the reserve and preventing offences.
• A Community Reserve Management Committee is formed to oversee the reserve, ensuring local involvement in conservation efforts.

Implications of the Supreme Court Order

The Supreme Court’s order shifts the management of sacred groves from community control to the Forest Department. This transition raises concerns regarding the rights granted under the Forest Rights Act. The Act empowers gram sabhas, or village councils, to manage community forest resources. By classifying sacred groves as community reserves, the Supreme Court’s decision may undermine local customs and governance structures.

Conflict with the Forest Rights Act

• The Forest Rights Act recognises community forest resources and grants local communities the authority to manage these areas.
• The Supreme Court’s directive could conflict with these provisions, as it places sacred groves under the jurisdiction of the Forest Department.
• This shift may disrupt traditional practices and the community’s relationship with their sacred groves, which have been maintained for generations.

Future Directions

The Supreme Court has directed the Union Environment Ministry to identify and map sacred groves across India. A comprehensive policy for their governance and management is also recommended. This initiative aims to balance conservation efforts with the rights and customs of local communities.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s directive on the management of sacred groves in Rajasthan.
2. Examine the role of community reserves in wildlife conservation and their impact on local governance.
3. Analyse the relationship between the Forest Rights Act and the Wildlife Protection Act in the context of community forest resources.
4. Estimate the potential effects of transferring sacred groves to Forest Department control on local biodiversity and cultural practices.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically discuss the implications of the Supreme Court’s directive on the management of sacred groves in Rajasthan.

1. The directive shifts control from local communities to the Forest Department, potentially undermining traditional governance.
2. It may conflict with the Forest Rights Act, which empowers gram sabhas to manage community forest resources.
3. The classification as community reserves could limit local access to resources traditionally used for cultural practices.
4. Concerns arise regarding the enforcement of conservation measures that may not align with community customs.
5. There is potential for increased bureaucratic oversight, which could hinder community-led conservation efforts.

2. Examine the role of community reserves in wildlife conservation and their impact on local governance.

1. Community reserves allow local communities to manage and conserve wildlife habitats collaboratively.
2. They empower communities by involving them in decision-making processes related to conservation efforts.
3. Such reserves can enhance biodiversity by leveraging local knowledge and traditional practices in management.
4. However, the effectiveness of community reserves depends on the degree of local involvement and support from authorities.
5. There may be challenges in balancing conservation goals with local economic needs and cultural practices.

3. Analyse the relationship between the Forest Rights Act and the Wildlife Protection Act in the context of community forest resources.

1. The Forest Rights Act recognizes the rights of local communities over forest resources, emphasizing their role in management.
2. The Wildlife Protection Act aims to conserve wildlife and habitats but may impose restrictions that conflict with community rights.
3. While the FRA seeks to empower communities, the WLPA often centralizes control with government authorities.
4. The overlap in jurisdiction can lead to confusion and conflict over the management of community forest resources.
5. About these acts’ interplay is crucial for developing policies that respect community rights while promoting conservation.

4. Estimate the potential effects of transferring sacred groves to Forest Department control on local biodiversity and cultural practices.

1. Transferring control may disrupt traditional conservation practices that have maintained biodiversity for generations.
2. Local knowledge about the ecological significance of sacred groves may be overlooked by bureaucratic management.
3. Restrictions imposed by the Forest Department could limit access to resources crucial for cultural and medicinal purposes.
4. Potential conflicts may arise between local customs and formal conservation policies, leading to community resistance.
5. The overall impact could result in a decline in both biodiversity and the cultural identity tied to these sacred spaces.