FOREST CASE UPDATE
Issue 10, March 2005
CONTENTS
1. North East India and a Forest Case
2. Hearing of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), 30th March 2005
3. CEC Hearing on Mining by Vedanta, Orissa (29th March 2005)
4. Highlights of the Godavarman Hearing, 1st April 2005
5. Some Orders in the Godavarman Case
North East India and a Forest Case
North East: Apex court rules the forests
Perhaps no judiciary in the world has devoted as much time, effort and innovativeness in protecting
our forests as the Supreme Court of India has for the last eight years. In doing so it reinterpreted the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, created new institutions and structures and conferred additional
powers on the existing ones. It has been a process of continuous involvement of the apex court in
forest management. The traditional supremacy of government forest departments has gradually been
challenged and in some cases replaced by the continuous supervision of the court aided by
concerned citizens and NGOs.
The Supreme Court's involvement in forest conservation largely centres on the Public Interest
Litigation viz T. N Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India (W.P 202 of 1995). The Godavarman
case attracted the limelight when on 12-12-1996 the court in its order 'suspended' the felling of trees
in all forests except in accordance with the working plans of the state governments which were
approved by the central government. In the same order the court clarified that the word 'forest'
must be understood according to the dictionary meaning.
Prior to it the word 'forest' was limited only to government declared forests irrespective of whether
it had tree cover or not. Likewise, areas with significant tree cover were not regarded as 'forest'
simply because in government records it was not declared as 'forest'. Due to this, large areas under
good forest cover were outside the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The court's
clarification expanded statutory recognition to forests irrespective of nature of ownership and
classification. This implies that forests could be designated as reserved and protected whether they
are privately owned or otherwise under the Forest (Conservation) Act, section 2(1).
1
Perhaps nowhere was the impact of the expanded meaning of the word 'forests' felt so severely as
was in the case of the north eastern states (NE) of the country. In many cases, the interpretations
and impacts have also been extremely controversial.
Less than two years after the first order in the Godavarman case, was another one on 15-01-1998. In
this order, the court directed that working plans for all forest divisions shall be prepared by the state
governments and would have to be approved by the central government. It was clarified that the
term 'State Government' would also include District Councils constituted under Schedule VI of the
Constitution of India.
Autonomous District Councils are local bodies under Sixth Schedule [Articles 244(2) and 275(1)] of
the Constitution. The Sixth Schedule has provisions for the administration of tribal areas in the
States of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. The district councils are the key local
governance institutions in many parts of the north east.
The 1998 order met with stiff criticism in the north east, on the grounds that the court was making
an arbitrary directive which had not taken into account the special constitutional provisions for the
region. More importantly, it was felt that the order had failed to appreciate the traditional
management systems of tribal communities in the region. These orders were seen as being aimed at
reinforcing centralized power structures.
It is important to trace the development of the case to clarify where the problem perhaps lay. The
sequence of events leading to the 12-12-1996 (first) order was clearly a reaction due to the lack of
response of the north eastern states to the issue of forest conservation. Prior to the passing of the
order prohibiting felling of trees, the Supreme Court directed the Forest Secretaries of the all the
seven north eastern states (excluding Sikkim), to be personally present in court, in view of them not
responding to the notice of the court.
Contrary to the general perception of what the court actually ordered, the Supreme Court had taken
note of the dependence of the people on timber trade and in its order stated clearly "considering the
dependence of the local people on the forest resources in the region, it is neither feasible, nor
desirable to ban completely either the timber trade or running of the wood based industries". It
therefore, allowed the continuation of timber extraction but after developing appropriate working
plans. It did however block the transport of timber outside the region.
In the second order, the court further concerned itself with the issue of reforming the Forest
Administration in the north eastern states. It directed that in view of the multidimensional issues
impinging upon forest protection:



A foolproof institutional arrangement needs to be put in place and made functional under
the ‘strict supervision’ of the North Eastern Council.
The Ministry of Environment and Forests was to provide technical support in forestry
matters by opening a separate cell in the Ministry under an officer of the rank of Chief
Conservator of Forests and;
A satellite office of Forest Survey of India (FSI) be set up at Shillong, Meghalaya.
The court also directed the north eastern states to identify ecologically sensitive areas in consultation
with institutions such as the Indian Council of Forestry Research and Education, Wildlife Institute
of India, North Eastern Hill University, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and
Technology and leading NGO’s and ensure that the identified ecologically sensitive areas be
2
protected from any kind of exploitation. It further stipulated that the extent of all such areas put
together be atleast 10% of the total area of a state.
In another order, considering the remoteness of the north east, the Supreme Court constituted the
Arunachal Pradesh Forest Protection Authority under the provision of Section 3(3) of the
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. This section of the EPA law gives power to the central
government to constitute an authority or authorities to take measures to protect and improve the
environment. This Authority could hear any appeal against any order passed by any Authority with
reference to the compliance of the orders of the Court. Further, this appeal was to be disposed in
conformity with the orders of the Court and only if that couldn't be done, it would be referred to
the Supreme Court.
The innovativeness of the Supreme Court lay in the fact that the Arunachal Pradesh authority was
the first instance where the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 was used to set up
a body to protect forests. This became the model, when the court setup the Central Empowered
Committee (CEC) in 2002 as a central body to assist it on forest related issues. The CEC has today
emerged to have a very significant influence in forest governance in the country.
Despite these positive developments, the implementation of the court's orders has had critical
problems. In an interesting study, Dev Nathan has documented how in Meghalaya, the Supreme
Court's order on prohibiting logging without an approved working plan led to some serious and
perverse, unintended consequences (Economic and Political Weekly, Jan 22, 2000). According to the
study, commercial sale of timber was carried on by large number of farmer families and income
from such sale of timber was a regular feature of their livelihood system, being the main source of
cash. This was used to meet household needs, including that of education.
As a result of the court's restrictions mentioned earlier on, cash incomes fell and families were
forced to reduce their cash expenses, including on education, especially higher education. Shops in
the villages reported lower sales than before. Families consume less of purchased foodstuffs, clothes
and medicine. Even though this study was limited to one district and may not have held true for
other areas, it does bring out the difficulties that can arise.
But most disturbingly, the Nathan study notes that the most important change is in the use of trees.
Since trees have no sale value as timber, farmers have turned to harvest trees for usage of lower
value. Pine trees, instead of being sold as high value timber, are being sold for one tenth the price as
firewood, on the sale of which there is no ban. Making charcoal from burning cut logs and tree
branches, which had virtually disappeared, has come back with a vengeance. Infact even the bark of
the trees are been harvested leading to the death of the tree. Most alarming is the large scale
conversion of timber forest into jhum (shifting cultivation) fields. As timber has no value, farmers
prefer to convert forested lands into agricultural plots.
But it is also worth recollecting that prior to the Supreme Courts intervention, the north eastern
region with only 7% of the land area was accounting for over 60% of the timber supplied. Many of
the traditional systems of forest management could not cope with huge market demands.
Uncountable number of saw mills operated in remote tribal areas most often under dejure tribal
ownership and in actuality controlled by non-tribals/non locals. In order to meet the burgeoning
requirement of timber, virgin natural forests were being stripped bare.
It is this situation then had demanded an urgent and immediate response. Something which the
political and executive machinery (including the autonomous district councils) had not responded to
or did not have the will to do so. But there were also difficulties with the implementation of the
3
apex court's orders and getting feedback from the north east on the nature of the issues. All of this
precipitated the second, January 1998 order.
Since the Godavarman case is ongoing, modification and clarifications of orders and directives can
be easily sought by filing intervention applications in the Supreme Court. There have been many
instances where modifications were made in order to deal with specific situations. For instance, in
the case of Uttaranchal, the Supreme Court clarified that none of the orders will affect the rights and
concessions conferred to the inhabitants of the hill region.
Similar interventions could help the court address conservation needs of the north eastern states
too. Biodiversity conservation and livelihood rights are critical for the ecological and social security
here. Unfortunately, the north east has not seen such region-specific intervention. There is currently
very little information about this case, its orders and how they effect the region. Any intervention
first needs to begin with the awareness. The legal complexities need to be demystified, creating the
space and possibility for simple but factual communication on the issue as well as public debates on
concerns and solutions. These tasks though daunting are certainly achievable.
Today, judicial intervention in forest matters is a reality. The Supreme Court has been taking a
proactive role in passing orders that impact forest governance. While this may not be an ideal
situation, it is what has emerged. The development trends in the country today are at the cost of the
environment because of disregard for environmental laws. Citizens have asked the Supreme Court
repeatedly to intervene because 'private' interests have attempted to bypass laws. Clearances required
under the Forest Conservation Act or the Environment Protection Act, are often simply not taken.
As a result legal intervention is sought.
There are problems with the Supreme Court oversight on forests as well. As pointed our earlier in
this article, the court's intervention is also sometimes viewed as one, which is centralised and does
not take local realities in mind. But the judiciary is there as forum of redressal and even crisis
management in some situations. In fact, the declaration of some Eco-Sensitive Areas in the country
has happened through Godavarman case interventions, when even the Ministry of Environment and
Forests had not acted.
This article appeared in India Together (www.indiatogether.org) on 15th March 2005. It can be
viewed at http://www.indiatogether.org/2005/mar/env-apexcourt.htm
Back to Contents
Hearing of the Central Empowered Committee, 30th March 2005
There were a range of matters, which were heard at the CEC Hearing on the 30 th of March 2005.
These were both I.A.s under the Godavarman case as well as matters filed directly before the CEC.
Some of the highlights were:

Regarding diversion of 3.98 Hectares of Forest Land form Bannerghatta National Park for laying of
transmission line from Somanahalli to Malur by Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation (1212-1213)
It was mentioned that the CEC would be examining this case based on the opinion of experts in the
field. They are also working on a model where wild animals are not harmed in instances like this.
4
The applicant was asked to see that transmission line avoids as much of the Protected Area as
possible. An affadavit needs to be filed in this regard.

Regarding restoration of damaged ecology in Valmiki Tiger Reserve, Bettiah, Champaran Bihar by the State of
Bihar (1214-1215)
There was no representation from the Ministry of Railways at the hearing. The MoEF counsel
pointed out that there is no opposition to the restoration of the area; however, there are reservations
with regards to the issue of compensation. There was no further discussion on this matter.

Permit being sought by the applicant to relocate his Saw Mill from Freegunj, Agra to Transport Nagar, Agra by
Ravindra Mohan Maheshwari (1227-1228)
The MoEF counsel raised objection in this matter, as the relocation would still be close to the
Reserve Forest Area.

Regarding dispose off the proposals for regularization of eligible pre -1980 encroachments in forest Areas in respect
of 17 Districts by the State of Orissa (1252)
The CEC asked the applicant to explain the criteria and principles that the state government has
used to determine the encroachments. State government amongst other things referred to two
circulars. One of these was dated as 4th May 2000 which defines who is a landless person and
thereby qualified/entitled to this. The CEC asked the state government to submit the two circulars
along with a short abstract on the matter. It also directed the MoEF to submit its site inspection
report in this case.
The matter is listed for a meeting cum hearing on the 11th April 2005.

Regarding Approval of the draft Working plans of Middle Andaman Forest Division By Society for Andaman
& Nicobar Ecology, Bombay Natural History Society and Kalpavriksh (1255)
The CEC will recommend that for the approval of working plans of Middle Andaman Forests, no
order needs to be issued. For the Mayabundar working plans, the order in I.A. 1171 maybe
extended.

Regarding Silver oak trees be exempted from the Tamilnadu Hill stations preservation of Trees Act and the
farmers must be permitted to plant and harvest Silver oak without fear and harassment by Mr. Alwas, President,
Nilgiri Tribal Development and Environment Society (1241-1242)
There was a lot of debate in this case on whether the matter would fall within the jurisdiction of
CEC or not. Since the matter does not attract the 12.12.1996 order of the Supreme Court in the
Godavarman case, and is against directives issued by the State Government, the CEC would not
intervene in the matter.

Regarding allowing the present application and consequently modify the prayer of I.A. no.
956/2003 by by Mr. Alwas, President, Nilgiri Tribal Development and Environment Society (1121 (956))
The MoEF counsel took onus upon him and requested for an additional 10 days time to file a
response. The matter is now listed for 11th April 2005

Regarding Encroachment in the additions to Kaziranga National Park by Belinda Wright, Wildlife Protection
5
Society of India (Application No. 179)
The MoEF counsel took onus upon him and requested for an additional 10 days time to file a
response. The matter is now listed for 11th April 2005
See: Forest Case Update, Issue 7, December 2004 and Issue 9, February 2005

Regarding grant of permission for opening of Industry to manufacture Splints & Veneer By M/s. Trishul Match
Industries (Application No. 306)
In the last hearing in this case, there was no appearance from the application.
The CEC highlighted that according to the Supreme Court order on sawmills there grant of saw mill
licenses is dependant on timber availability. The applicants want use Poplar trees which are not
available in Rajathan, and want to import them from Uttaranchal. The CEC stated that Uttaranchal
already has received too many applications for this. Further, there is also the critical issue of the
state governments taking care of the already existing unlicensed saw mills in the state, which has not
been done. Only after that any application for the opening of a new sawmill can be considered. The
application was thereby dismissed.
See: Forest Case Update Issue 9, February 2005

Regarding lease of Reserve Forest land for rubber cultivation in Dodagu, Karnataka by Air Marshal (Retd.)
K.C. Cariappa (Application No. 410)
The state government is still in the process of completing the survey on the encroachments, which
would take another six weeks. The applicant made a suggestion that an independent survey be
carried out by the Survey of India and the Revenue Department, apart from the one being done by
the Forest Department. It was decided that first the survey that is being carried out be completed
and only then an independent survey be considered, if the need arises.
Another issue raised by the applicant was that they have been issued notices by the forest
department with reference to encroachment of land. This is while the matter is still being heard.
The CEC asked the State Forest Department not to issue any such notice, till the survey work is
completed and the status of encroachment is determined.
The matter would be listed after six weeks, on the survey by the State Forest Department has been
completed.
See: Forest Case Update, Issue 7, December 2004 and Issue 9, February 2005

Applications No. 601, 602 and 603
There was no substantive discussion in these matters and all three applications were rejected by the
CEC.
Back to Contents
6
CEC Hearing on Mining by Vedanta, Orissa (29th March 2005)
The Vedanta Resources Plc filed its reply to the Application filed by Wildlife Society of Orissa. The
MoEF sought time to file its reply. The CEC clarified that it would be staying the project but would
send its recommendations to the Supreme Court for its final decision. In view of the fact that the
Supreme Court is on vacation from mid May, the CEC made it clear that it would be keen to ensure
that the recommendations are placed before the court as soon as possible.
The matter was listed for further hearing on the 8th of April 2005.
Back to Contents
Highlights of the Godavarman Hearing on 1st April 2005
In Flash News 24, we had sent out the list of matters that are to be heard at the Godavarman
Hearing at the Supreme Court on 1.4.2005. Many matters could not be heard due to shortage of
time, and had to be adjourned. Highlights of the some of those that were, have been described
below.
In I.A. No. 1175 was with reference to the Recommendations of the CEC regarding the Sanjay
Gandhi National Park, Mumbai. The court decided to accept the recommendations of the Central
Empowered Committee (CEC) and also directed the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) to
deposit the Net Present Value of the forest land diverted for non forest purpose. This money will be
collected by the CEC and released. This would be utilised for the National Park.
Another matter heard was the Contempt Petition 479/202; in which petitioners had pointed out that
illegal licenses are being granted to sawmills. Following a discussion on this, the court directed that
the entire record including the papers filed in the court should be sent to the CEC for examination.
The state government was also directed to give the original records to the CEC. The CEC would file
a report within eight weeks
Contempt Petition 442/2004 highlighted that fourteen plywood factories, which are supposed to be
closed are still operating. This matter was also referred to the CEC.
With reference to I.A. No. 826 in 566 which dealt with Compensatory Afforestation and Net
Present Value, the Amicus Curiae suggested there needs to be a lot of time (two days) dedicated to
this matter in the court as it required detailed discussion. He further suggested that the court confine
itself to the state government and Union of India matters, as it will be difficult to go through
applications filed by each affected individual. He suggested that the court dedicated two days for
hearing this matter in the first week of May, just before the courts go on vacation or in the first week
of the reopening of the courts. It was agreed that the Bench would try and take up the issue for
hearing before the court goes on vacation in the first week of May.
I.A. No. 989 and 1221 In I.A. No. 857-858, was with reference to the allotment of forest land in
Korba, Chattisgarh, without approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, for setting up of a
coal washery. The court received satellite imagery and a report from Bilaspur Environment Society,
which presented remote sensing date in the form of maps, to present the change of landuse since
7
January 2002. The court took the view that if the data of the khasra nos. presented in the satellite
imagery is correct then the earlier report of the CEC which stated that there is no forest land
involved will be prima facie incorrect. The counsel representing Maruti Clean Coke, Arun Jaitley,
stated that there are many coal washeries operating in the same area. So any order applicable to the
Maruti washery should also be applicable to the other units. The court directed CEC to reexamine
their report, also directed the Amicus and the CEC to put together a list of all the units operating in
the area. The Forest Survey of India, South Eastern Coal, and Regional Remote Sensing Authority
would assist in the preparation of this report and putting together the data. The matter is now listed
for 15th April 2005. (Also refer Forest Case Update Issue 2, July 2004; Issue 3, August 2004; Issue 4,
September 2004; Issue 8, January 2005 for more details on this case)
Back to Contents
Some Orders in the Godavarman Case
Orders Dated 04-03-2005

A 1246-1247
Issue Notice. Mr A.D.N. Rao, learned counsel accepts notce on behalf of Ministry of environment
and Forest and Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, Learned Counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent no
2 to 7.
Response to the application may be filed within four weeks.
The CEC may also file its response to the application.

I.A Nos. 1250-1251 in W.P ( C ) No. 202/1995
To be taken up along with I. A No 1000.

I.A No 32
The application is refered to the CEC for examination and making recommendation.
Orders Dated 11-03-2005

Report Regarding Release of water from Panchana Dam to the Keoladeo National
Park in Rajasthan.
The Report regarding release of water from the Panchana Dam to the Keoladeo National Park in
Rajasthan is taken on record. Let it be registered as an Interlocutory application.
Issue notice to the State of Rajasthan and Ministry of Forest and Environment. Dasti service, in
addition, is permitted.
Mr A.D.N Rao, learned advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the Forest and environment.
8
List the interlocutory application after four weeks.

Recommendations of CEC in I. A Nos 1238-1239
Having considered the recommendations of the Central Empowered Commmittee, we permit that
laying and maintaining of Optical Fibre Cable through the Kaziranga National Park by the Oil India
Limited, subject to the approval by the Ministry of Environment and Forest under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, which shall be decided by the Ministry of Environment and Forest within one
week, on oil India Limited depositing Rupees one crore with the CEC in the account of the
Compensatory Afforestation Fund for undertaking conservation and protection works in the
Kaziranga National Park. In case the Ministry of Environment and Forests grants approval to the
project, it would not be necessary to file any other formal application seeking permission of this
court. It is implicit that Oil India Limited would abide by the other conditions stipulated by the
Standing Committee.
The Interlocutory application is accordingly, disposed of.
Editors: Ritwick Dutta and Kanchi Kohli
For further information and clarifications please write to forestcase@yahoo.com
From now on all issues of the Forest Case Update will be uploaded on
http://www.geocities.com/forestcase/forestcaseupdate.html
We would like to acknowledge the kind support of Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) for this
initiative.
9