The Supreme Court on Monday told the Centre and the state governments that no forest land can be used for linear projects unless a compensatory area is being provided for afforestation, The Hindu reported.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and K Vinod Chandran told Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, that it would not allow the reduction of forest area.

Linear projects are those that involve repeating activities along a continuous length such as highways, tunnels, pipelines and rail construction.

The bench made the statements while hearing a batch of petitions challenging the amendments made to the Forest Conservation Act in 2023.

The Forest Conservation Amendment Act, proposing amendments to the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 that provided legislative support for conserving forest land and its resources, came into force on December 1, 2023.

Experts have claimed that the amendments were an effort to open forest land for commercial purposes.

In February 2024, the court told states and Union Territories to follow the definition of “forest” that had been mentioned in a 1996 judgement, while hearing the petitions against the Act.

The bench had ordered that until the process of identifying forest land as per new rules under the Act was completed, states and Union Territories should go by the definition of “forest” laid down by it in the 1996 Godavarman Thirumalpad vs Union of India verdict.

In this judgement, the court had held that a deemed forest would not only include “forests” as understood by the dictionary meaning of the word – a large area with significant tree cover – but also any areas recorded as forests in government records, irrespective of ownership.

The judgement has protected vast tracts of eco-sensitive and Adivasi lands under the Forest Conservation Act even if they are not formally classified as a “forest” in revenue records.

“Pending the completion of exercise by the administration of the state governments and Union Territories, under Rule 16, the principles which are elucidated in the judgment of this court in TN Godavarman must be continued to be observed,” the court had said in an interim ruling.

The bench had also directed states and Union Territories to provide a record of land identified as “forests” as per the 1996 judgement by March 31, 2024, Live Law reported.

On Monday, Senior Advocate PC Sen, representing a petitioner, told the court that while the matter remained pending, forest land was being used by authorities for compensatory afforestation, which in turn was decreasing forest land area, Live Law reported.

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, for another petitioner, said that some states had identified “forests” as per the 1996 classification and some had not

“While the states are yet to identify ‘forests’, the rules cannot be allowed to be used to permit ex post facto approval,” Live Law quoted Sankaranarayanan as saying.

Sankaranarayanan said that trees on forest lands were being cleared to make away land for compensatory afforestation. Linear projects had been granted complete exemption under the Act, which is not permissible, he added.

In response, Gavai asked Bhati whether forest land was being used for compensatory afforestation.

Bhati told the bench that she would file a response in the matter within three weeks and would also submit a status report, PTI reported.

The court listed the matter for further hearing on March 4.

Also read: