Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a stern warning to the Chief Secretaries of States and Administrators of Union Territories, stating that they would personally face accountability if they failed to set up expert committees within one month to identify forests in their jurisdictions.
The Court also directed the preparation of consolidated records of these forests within six months.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The Bench, led by Justices B.R. Gavai and A.G. Masih, acted after Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati reported that many States had not yet formed expert committees, as required by a Supreme Court judgment from December 12, 1996, and subsequent orders.
Bhati also mentioned that most States had not completed consolidating forest records under Rule 16(1) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam Rules, 2023.
This rule extends conservation protection to “forest-like areas” identified by expert committees, as well as unclassified and community forest lands.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The Court also reiterated its definition of “forest,” stating that it should be understood in its broad, dictionary meaning, as established in the 1996 T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India case.
This definition includes any area recorded as “forest” in government records, regardless of its classification or ownership.
The Court reaffirmed this understanding in several subsequent orders, including those in November 2023, February 2024, and February 2025.
The case involved challenges to amendments made to the Forest Act in 2023, which petitioners argue would reduce the scope of “forest” to only those lands officially declared or recorded as forests after October 25, 1980.
Petitioners, including advocates Prashant Bhushan, Prashanto Chandra Sen, and Gopal Sankaranarayanan, claimed this change would exclude about 1.97 lakh square kilometers of forest area, potentially causing ecological imbalance.
In response, the Centre agreed not to take any immediate action.
The Court stated that identifying forests is crucial to ensuring their preservation.
It instructed States and Union Territories to complete this process thoroughly and submit a report to the Union government, which will then present it to the Court.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sankaranarayanan highlighted the Court’s February 3 order, which prohibited reducing forest land for linear projects unless compensatory afforestation land was provided.
He requested clarification on whether this provision might allow governments to approach the Court for permission to use forest land for such projects, with the promise of compensatory afforestation.
The Court, however, declined to provide further clarification, noting that it could not pass orders based on hypothetical situations.