The Supreme Court order on December 18 recognising sacred groves as “deemed forests” goes beyond the traditional understanding of forests and conservation. It allowed sparse ecosystems of trees that are not documented or classified as forests under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 (formerly known as the Forest [Conservation] Act, 1980) to be protected.
The ruling reflects a conscious attempt by the Supreme Court to move beyond the conventional metrics of forest density and embrace a more inclusive, ecosystem-centric approach that values ecological functionality and cultural significance.
The order came in response to a petition that sacred groves, known in Rajasthan as orans, should be classified as forests so that they could be protected under the law. These culturally significant, ecologically vital groves are spread over 600,000 hectares in the state. They are biodiversity hotspots, water recharge zones and community resources.
The Supreme Court, in its judgement, has asked the Union government to frame a policy to conserve sacred groves across the country. Highlighting the cultural, spiritual and ecological importance of orans, the court directed Rajasthan to expedite surveys of these groves, to classify them as forests and involve local communities in conserving them.
This was the latest verdict by the court in response to a public interest litigation that had been filed in 1995. As the court monitors the progress of its initial judgement in TN Godavarman vs Union of India delivered in 1996, it has issued several subsequent orders.
In the 1996 judgement, the Supreme Court broadened the definition of forests. It said that the word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning, irrespective of ownership, legal status and vegetation. This paved the way for sacred groves to eventually be recognised as forests.
Cultural rights in forest conservation
Last month’s judgement emphasises that sacred groves embody a profound cultural connection between communities and nature. In many places, communities are driven by religious reverence to guard such spaces from deforestation and exploitation.
The court’s recognition of their sacred status underscores how cultural traditions act as conservation mechanisms in many parts of India.
The Supreme Court, in its judgement, aligned this understanding with Section 36(5) of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, which mandates respect for traditional knowledge in conservation.
This interpretation by the Supreme Court allows other kinds of forests that may not be classified as reserved forests or protected forests or be termed as deemed forests or unclassed forests to be protected under the Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam.
As per the Forest Survey of India, Reserved forests have complete protection under the provisions of the India Forest Act or the State Forest Acts, meaning that all nature activities are prohibited unless permitted. Meanwhile, the protected forests, also notified under the Indian Forest Act or State Forest Acts, have a limited degree of protection, meaning that all activities are allowed until prohibited.
Unclassed forests refer to areas recorded as forests but not included in the reserved or protected forest category. The ownership status of such forests varies from state to state. They are presumed to be under a higher degree of threat.
Measuring the new forest amendments
This was one of the first instances when the Supreme Court commented on the restricted understanding of “forest” within the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023. The amendment has been criticised for limiting the protection of forests and contravening the 1996 judgement of the Supreme Court. (It also changed the name of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, to The Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980,)
The amendment exempted certain types of forest land from the purview of the act. For instance, no forest clearance permission is needed in areas up to 100 km from the international border if linear projects like roads and railways vital to national security are being constructed. The amendment also enhanced the definition of “forest activities” by including eco-tourism and public utility services.
Experts had feared that with the new amendments, large tracts of forest land would either be excluded from the Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam or easily diverted for non-forest purposes.
The Supreme Court grounded its reasoning in its judgement on sacred groves in the preamble of the Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, which had been added by the 2023 amendment to interpret the intention of the legislation.
This preamble underlines India’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions to net zero by 2070. This would balance between the amount of greenhouse gasses that India produces and the amount that is removed from the atmosphere. These gasses contribute to global warming.
The preamble also declares India’s aim to increase forest carbon stocks. This refers to the amount of carbon that has been sequestered from the atmosphere and is now stored within the forest ecosystem.
The court highlighted how the explicit inclusion of these goals reflects a broader legislative intention to preserve forests as ecological assets and as repositories of cultural and spiritual values essential to communities like those protecting sacred groves.
In principle, the preamble goes against the amended provisions of the Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, so the Supreme Court’s decision to use that section as a guiding principle to interpret the provision of the law is significant.
As a consequence, the preamble could also be invoked to interpret other ambiguous exemptions permitted under the Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, such as eco-tourism or public utilities that do not require forest clearance permissions.
Future course
The Supreme Court has recommended that the Rajasthan government align its new Forest Policy of 2023 with the recommendation of the Central Empowered Committee appointed as a statutory body in 2002 to identify areas to be treated as forests and start the process to notify organs in the state.
The court emphasised the unique ecosystems of certain regions of the state could also be declared as forest land. Hence, the desert ecosystem of Rajasthan could be considered “forest land” despite its sparse vegetation.
The court also recommended that sacred groves be protected by designating them as “community reserves” under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. However, this initiative risks falling short of its purpose. Community reserves can be declared only on private and community land, which would mean excluding vast tracts of government lands that do not fall under the National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, or conservation reserves that may house significant sacred groves.
Shashank Pandey and Stuti Rastogi are legal researchers.
