No steps to be taken by Centre, states to reduce forest cover: SC
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday restrained until further orders the Centre and the states from taking any step that would reduce forest areas.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai and K Vinod Chandran was hearing a batch of petitions against the amendments to the 2023 forest conservation law.
"We will not permit anything which leads to reduction of forest area. We further order that until further orders, no steps will be taken by the Union of India and any state which will lead to reduction of forest land unless compensatory land is provided by the Centre and the states...," the bench said.
Additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for the Centre, said she would file response on the applications filed in the matter within three weeks.
A status report would also be placed before the court prior to the next date of hearing, added Bhati.
One of the advocates appearing in the matter said the pleadings were complete and the issue raised in the pleas related to the amendments to forest conservation law of 2023.
The bench posted the hearing on March 4.
In February last year, the top court took note of the submission that the definition of forest under the 2023 amended law on conservation left out nearly 1.99 lakh square kilometer of forest land from the ambit of "forests" and made it available for other purposes.
The bench said any fresh proposal for opening a zoo or starting a "safari" on forest land would now require the Supreme Court's approval.
It directed the state governments and union territories to provide the details of forest land within their jurisdiction to the Centre by March 31, 2024.
The top court said the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change would put all the details on "forest like area, unclassed forest land and community forest land", to be provided by the states and union territories (UT), on its website by April 15 last year.
"... we issue an interim order to the effect that any proposal for the establishment of zoos and safaris referred to in the Wile Life Protection Act 1972, enacted by the government or any authority in forest areas other than protected areas, shall not be finally approved by the states/union territories, save and except with the prior permission of this court," it had said.
In its interim order, the bench asked the states and UTs to act as per the definition of "forest" as laid down by the top court in the 1996 judgment in the case of TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India.
The petitioners alleged the wide definition of a "forest" in the apex court judgement was narrowed under Section 1A inserted in the amended law.
The amended law says land has to be either notified as a forest or specifically recorded as a forest in a government record to qualify as a "forest".
The Centre said the amendments were passed following the top court's directions in the judgement.
On March 27, 2023, the Centre introduced the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill whereas the pleas challenged the constitutionality of the amended law, seeking it to be struck down as null and void.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Sujit Nair raises concerns over speculation of DMK-AIADMK understanding to block TVK
Chennai: Journalist and political commentator Sujit Nair has expressed concern over speculation that the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam could explore a post-poll understanding to prevent Vijay-led Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from forming the government in Tamil Nadu.
In a social media post, Sujit Nair said the election verdict in Tamil Nadu reflected a clear public demand for political change and argued that the mandate should be respected irrespective of political preferences.
Referring to reports and political discussions surrounding a possible understanding between the DMK and AIADMK, he said he hoped such developments remained only speculative conversations and did not turn into reality.
Nair stated that if such an alliance were to take shape, it would raise serious questions about ideological politics in the country. He said TVK had emerged through a democratic electoral process and that the legitimacy to govern in a parliamentary democracy comes from the people’s verdict.
According to him, attempts to prevent an electoral winner from forming the government through unexpected political arrangements may be constitutionally valid, but many people could view them as politically opportunistic.
He further said that such a move could particularly affect the political image of the DMK, which has historically projected itself around ideology, social justice and opposition politics. Nair said that in ideological terms, the DMK appeared closer to TVK than to the AIADMK, and joining hands with its long-time political rival only to remain in power could weaken its broader political narrative.
He added that the same questions would apply to the AIADMK as well, as the party had spent decades positioning itself against the DMK and such an arrangement could create discomfort among its cadre and supporters.
Drawing a comparison with Maharashtra politics in 2019, Nair said he had expressed similar views when the Shiv Sena formed an alliance with the Indian National Congress and the Nationalist Congress Party after the Assembly elections.
He said post-poll alliances between long-standing political rivals often create a public perception that ideology and electoral mandates become secondary when political power equations come into play.
Nair also said such developments increase public cynicism towards politics and reinforce the belief among voters that ideology is often sidelined after elections.
He maintained that the Tamil Nadu verdict was emphatic and said respecting both the spirit and substance of the mandate was important for the credibility of democratic politics.
