The Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 is a key piece of environmental legislation in India aimed at conserving forest land by restricting diversion of forest land for non-forest uses. In 2022, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgement upholding the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act and emphasizing the importance of protecting forests for climate change mitigation.
Key Developments
- February 2023: Supreme Court upholds Forest Conservation Act, imposes restrictions on the diversion of forest land
- December 2022: Government releases India State of Forest Report 2021 showing increase in forest cover across India
- August 2022: Proposed amendments to Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2020 to make the forest clearance process more stringent
Supreme Court Judgement Summary
- Date of Judgement: February 15, 2023
- Case Details: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1152 of 2017 in the case of Wildlife First & Ors. vs. Ministry of Environment and Forest & Ors.
- Key Highlights of Judgement:
- Reiterated the importance of preserving pristine forests which act as major carbon sinks
- Imposed stricter restrictions on the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes like mining, infrastructure projects
- Mandated that EIA studies must have detailed assessment of biodiversity impact
- Emphasized the need for project proponents to identify alternatives when proposing diversion of forest land
Background of Forest Conservation Act
The Forest (Conservation) Act was enacted in 1980 to help conserve India’s forests which were threatened by largescale deforestation and land diversion for development projects.
- As per the Act, forest land cannot be used for any non-forest purpose without obtaining prior approval of the central government.
- Over the years, the Act has helped in monitoring diversion of forest land by ensuring proper scrutiny of proposals through a multi-level committee set up by the central government.
- However, some experts argued that the forest clearance process lacked transparency and favored certain business interests over environmental concerns.
- The Supreme Court judgment aims to address some of these limitations by tightening the implementation of the Act.
Supreme Court’s observations and directions
- Observed that climate change concerns call for even more stringent application of Forest Conservation Act
- Directed that pristine forests and biodiversity rich areas should be treated as ineligible for diversion
- Ordered that rejection of proposals should be the norm; approval an exception granted only when unavoidable
- Mandated comprehensive impact assessment studies for diversion proposals, including assessment of biodiversity loss
- Ordered governments to identify alternatives when proposing diversion of forest land, justify why alternatives not feasible
- Emphasized that conservation goals under international agreements like Paris Agreement must guide decisions on forest diversion
- Widened the scope of judicial review of decisions made under the Forest Conservation Act
Potential Impact of the Judgment
The Supreme Court judgment is expected to have far-reaching consequences by leading to stricter scrutiny of developmental projects requiring forest land diversion.
- Proponents of mining, hydropower projects, highways and other linear infrastructure projects may face delays in getting approvals due to the wider scope for judicial review and additional impact assessment requirements.
- However, environmentalists have welcomed the judgment stating that it accords the much needed priority to preservation of forests instead of diverting forest land.
- Governments also cannot easily bypass environmental rulebook while pushing development projects.
- Over the long term, the judgment may disincentivize location of projects in biodiversity rich forest areas and promote identification of alternative sites.
- It thus has the potential to better balance environmental sustainability with infrastructure development.
Arguments Made by Industry Associations
- Judgment ignores ground realities of social and economic needs of the nation
- Overemphasis on conservation will come at cost of infrastructure creation and job generation
- Process laid out will significantly increase transaction cost and time for approvals
- Alternatives cannot be found easily once location is chosen based on resource availability or technical and socio-economic feasibility
- Biodiversity studies require extensive fieldwork and qualified manpower over long time periods, causing delays
Counter-Arguments by Environmentalists
- Short-term economic considerations cannot override long term ecological stability
- Judicious utilization of forest produce possible without destroying forest character
- Alternatives assessment to be built-in right from initial stages of project planning
- Stricter enforcement will encourage innovative solutions reconciling development and environment
- Previous system led to excessive legal disputes; more stringent process will reduce conflicts
The Supreme Court’s judgment on Forest Conservation Act reinforces India’s commitment to balance economic growth and sustainability enshrined internationally.
- By plugging loopholes in regulatory architecture, it will encourage optimizing resource use for infrastructure needs while respecting ecological constraints.
- Disputes stemming from diversion of forests may reduce over time as alternatives assessment and impact evaluation gets standardized.
- The judgement delivers an unequivocal message that natural forests represent our priceless green heritage to be preserved for posterity.
