New Delhi: The Supreme Court examining the validity of amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act on Monday held that its prior permission will be necessary for setting up any zoo or safari in a forest, and directed all states and union territories to submit information about the total forest land, as determined under a 1996 top court decision to the Centre, latest by March 31 this year.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud passed the interim order while adjourning the petitions challenging the validity of the 2023 amendments to July. The order became necessary as the petitioners before the Court expressed apprehensions that the amendments, if allowed to operate, will result in de-classification of over 1.97 lakh square kilometres of forest, protected under the definition of “forest” by a top court order of December 12, 1996 in the landmark TN Godavarman case.

“We issue an interim order to the effect that any proposal for setting up a zoo or safari referred to in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, owned by government or any authority in forest area other than protected areas, shall not be finally approved save and except the final approval of this Court,” held the bench, also comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra.

The bench further directed the Centre to issue a circular to all states and union territories directing them to comply with the 1996 ruling and require them to submit reports on identified forest land as per the Godavarman ruling within two weeks. The states and UTs were directed to do the needful before March 31. Once the reports are received, the Centre was further directed to digitise the records and publish it on the website of the ministry of environment, forests, climate change (MoEFCC) not later than April 15.

Under the amended Forest Conservation Act, the Court exempted zoo and safari from the long list of non-forestry activities, paving the way for such activities to be organised inside forests. Already, a proposal for setting up tiger safari at Jim Corbet tiger reserve in Uttarakhand has been reserved for judgment by the top court. Another proposal is in the pipeline to have an animal safari at Haryana’s Aravalli forest range against which an application has been moved in the top court.

The Court said, “Where any proposal (for zoo or safari) is sought to be implemented, the Union government or the competent authority shall move this Court.”

The order was passed in a batch of petitions filed by a group of retired Indian Forest Service officials and former bureaucrats and NGO Vanashakti, which objected to these amendments allowing wholesale abuse of forest land.

The petitioners led by senior advocate Prashanto Chandra Sen and advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the amendment constricted the definition of forests from what was laid down in the 1996 Godavarman ruling.

They referred to the India State of Forests Report of the Forest Survey of India (FSI) and said that out of the total of 7.13 lakh sq km of forests in the country, an area of 1.97,159 sq km having tree cover (not forming part of declared forests in government records) would stand excluded from the recorded forest areas (RFA) as the amendment recognised only declared forest land while excluding the Godavarman interpretation of treating forests as per its dictionary meaning and all lands treated as forests under any law or government records.

Sen argued that when the amendments were discussed by the joint committee of Parliament, this apprehension was raised on whether the amendments would fall foul of the Court’s decision. He pointed out that the Centre made a solemn assurance to the Committee that the amendments are in compliance with Court’s directions. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As per the 1996 decision, all states and UTs were directed to constitute an expert committee to identify forests based on the Court’s ruling. We have applied under Right to Infromation Act to get access to these reports and we have not been supplied with any,” Sen submitted.

Additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati appearing for Centre informed the Court that some states have given their state expert committee (SEC) reports as directed by the Court. “The Centre will require hand-holding from the Court to get this information from states as ultimately the Centre wants to digitise this information,” Bhati added.

The Court said, “The report of SEC is crucial for maintenance of contemporaneous record of forest land. The Union of India through MoEFCC, within a period of two weeks shall require all states and UTs to provide comprehensive record of all lands identified as forests, in pursuance of directions given in TN Godavarman ruling.” It further held, “These records shall be maintained by MoEFCC and duly digitised and made available in electronic format and be made available on its website not later than April 15, 2024.”

Under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam 2023 which provides for an explanation on what forests are to be included as per government record, ASG said that states and UTs are required to prepare consolidated record of such lands, including forest like areas as identified by the expert committees, unclassed forest lands or community forest lands on which the Adhiniyam will be applicable.

Also Read: Centre defends Forest Act amendments for setting up safaris, security projects

The Court’s order said, “We clarify pending the completion of exercise by states and UTs under the Adhiniyam Rule 16, the principles which are elucidated by this Court in TN Godavarman case must continue to be observed….The MoEFCC shall, in pursuance of this interim order, issue a circular to all states and UTs to act strictly in accordance with the directions given by this Court.”

Last month, the MoEFCC had filed a detailed response defending the amendments The Godavarman decision held that ‘forest land’ as defined in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 would include not only forests as understood in the dictionary sense but any area recorded as forest in the Government records.

The affidavit said, “All forests, including unclassed forests, recorded in record of government, forest department, local bodies, or authorities will also attract provisions of the Act…It is emphasised that the provisions of the Amended Act, in no way, will dilute the directions contained in the order of December 12, 1996 passed by Supreme Court. On the contrary, it will consolidate and codify the law relating to forests in the country.”

The petitions also questioned the inclusion of zoos and safaris under non-forestry activities and other exemptions such as setting up of security infrastructure and projects of strategic importance near border areas from forest land.

Also Read: Amended forest act likely to benefit project developers

On the above issues, the Centre’s affidavit said, “Such zoos and safaris are generally created in the proximity of habitation to ensure minimum disturbance to the pristine forest ecosystem. Such activities will not only sensitise and generate awareness about the importance of protection and conservation of forest land and wildlife, but will also add to the livelihood sources of local community, thereby providing them opportunities to connect with mainstream of development.”

The Centre defended exemptions under the Act for setting up security infrastructure by pointing out that security-related infrastructure, linear strategic projects along border and left-wing extremist districts are not “blanket exemptions” and will include specific projects of strategic importance or national security as “identified by Central government”.

The first petition challenging the amended Act filed by a group of 13 retired bureaucrats was entertained by the Court in October last year. They argued that permitting commercial activity in forests with the creation of permanent structures, access roads, power transmission lines and other supporting infrastructure for zoos and safaris will “sound the death knell of forests in India.” The petition further said, “Each diversion of land, without any cumulative ceiling being prescribed across the country, will pockmark our forests with cancerously growing deforested islands and fragment them, causing enormous ecological loss.”

The Forest Act amendments received Presidential assent on August 4 last year.