GUWAHATI: The Assam Cabinet’s recent decision to denotify three Proposed Reserve Forests (PRFs) in Tinsukia has sparked legal and environmental concerns, as it was made without prior approval from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) or the Supreme Court of India.
The move has been criticized for its potential violation of existing forest protection laws and Supreme Court directives.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The decision, announced by Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma on January 31, aims to grant land rights to over 20,000 residents living in Talpathar (170 hectares), Mohongpathar (466 hectares), and First Addition to Duarmarah (113 hectares) by converting them into revenue villages. However, critics argue that the move sets a dangerous precedent for encroachments on forest land and violates the long-standing legal principle of “Once a forest, always a forest.”
Environmental activists and legal experts argue that the denotification of PRF directly contradicts Supreme Court rulings that have prohibited the dereservation of forests, sanctuaries, and national parks without proper approvals.
Perhaps the most significant case after the Godavarman case in respect of forest lands and protected areas of India is the case titled Centre for Environmental Law, World Wide Fund for Nature India Vs Union of India. On November 13, 2000, in writ petition No. 337 of 1995 filed by the Centre for Environmental Law, WWF against Union of India, the Supreme Court ordered, “…pending further orders no dereservation forest/sanctuaries/National Parks shall be effected.”
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
By this time, the Supreme Court had already defined the term “forest” in its order dated December 12, 1996, in writ petition (civil) 202 of 1995 as: “…The word “forest”: must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise forthe purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership….”
Consequently, then Union Minister for MoEF&CC, Prakash Javadekar, in his answer on December 15, 2015 to the Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No.2692 on the forest land denotified in the country stated: “…denotification of any forest land requires prior approval of the Central government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as the approval of Supreme Court in accordance with order on November 13, 2000 in I.A. No.2 in W.P. No.337/1995….”
Again, while answering the Lok Sabha unstarred question No.1258, then Union Minister of State for Environment, Forests and Climate Change Ashwini Kumar Choubey stated on December 11, 2023: “…the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated November 13, 2000 in I.A. No.2 in W.P. No.337/1995 has directed that pending further orders, no dereservation of forests/sanctuaries/national parks shall be effected….”
This has been the legal position for the last twenty-five years or so. Since the denotification of forest land of all hues has been stayed by the Supreme Court, and only the diversion of forest land with prior approval of the Central government is permitted under the Forest (Conservation) Act, as per which the legal status of forest land does not change after the diversion, the legal principle of, “Once a forest, always a forest” came into being. This principle has been articulated several times by the Supreme Court (Prem Mohan Gaur Vs. NHAI, Narinder Singh Vs. Devesh Bhutani), Central Empowered Committeeconstituted by the Supreme Court (CEC Report, 2010), as well as High Courts while deciding cases related to forest land.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has restrained the Central government from further regularization of encroachments over forest land vide their order on November 23, 2001, in IA No.703 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995. This was in the backdrop of a flood of proposals that would be received from the state governments for the regularisation of encroachments on forest land before every General Election. Further encroachments would follow in the hope of future regularisations.
Finally, the Supreme Court, in its recent order on February 3, 205 in writ petition 1164/2023, directed: “We make it clear that until further orders, no steps will be taken by the Union of India or any of the States, which will lead to reduction of the forest land unless a compensatory land is provided either by the State Government or the Union of India for the purpose of afforestation.”
Journalist and activist Apurba Ballv Goswami from Golaghat pointed out that the State Cabinet does not have the sole authority to denotify any forest land. He further criticized the move as an attempt to regularize encroachments, which goes against Supreme Court directives issued in 2001 (IA No.703 in WP 202/1995), prohibiting further encroachments on forest land.
Additionally, the Forest Rights Act, 2006, provides a framework for granting land rights to indigenous and forest-dwelling communities, but such rights cannot be granted after denotifying PRFs, particularly to those who do not qualify under the Act.
The denotification of 749 hectares of forest land raises concerns about its impact on biodiversity, climate resilience, and wildlife corridors. The Dehing Patkai region, where these forests are located, is often referred to as the “Amazon of the East” due to its rich biodiversity and critical role in maintaining ecological balance.
The Assam government’s move is likely to face legal scrutiny, and environmental groups may approach the Supreme Court to challenge the decision. Given the stringent legal framework governing forest land, the Cabinet’s resolution could be reversed if deemed unlawful.
Renowned lawyer Prashanta N. Choudhury has raised concerns over the issue, emphasizing that the Indian Constitution explicitly mandates forest protection. Article 48A, introduced through the 42nd Amendment, directs the State to protect and improve the environment, safeguarding forests and wildlife as part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. This provision underscores the government’s duty to work towards environmental conservation.
“In addition, Article 51A(g) imposes a fundamental duty on every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers, and wildlife. To enforce these constitutional provisions, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, was enacted to regulate the use of forest land and prevent deforestation. Originally implemented on October 25, 1980, this Act was later amended in 1988, extending its applicability across India, including Jammu & Kashmir,” Choudhury said,” Choudhury said.
He also said the Indian Forest Act of 1927, which replaced the older Indian Forest Act of 1865, remains a cornerstone of forest governance. Under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, state governments must obtain prior approval from the central government before de-reserving a protected forest, converting forest land for non-forest purposes, or leasing forest land to private entities.
“Despite these legal safeguards, amendments in 1992 allowed limited non-forest activities within forests, subject to prior approval from the Central government. Additionally, any disputes under this Act can be appealed to the National Green Tribunal (NGT). Violations may lead to imprisonment of up to 15 days under Section 3A,” he added.