How Haryana’s new ‘dictionary meaning of forest’ will affect the Aravallis

Haryana’s definition

In its notification dated August 18, Haryana’s Environment, Forest and Wildlife department stated: “A patch of land shall be deemed to be ‘forest as per dictionary meaning’ if it fulfils following conditions:

* It has a minimum area of five hectares, if it is in isolation, and a minimum area of two hectares, if it is in contiguity with the government notified forests; and

* It has a canopy density of 0.4 (40%) or more”.

The notification further specifies that “all linear/compact/agro-forestry plantations and orchards situated outside the government notified forests shall not be treated as forests under the above definition”. Such linear plantations are frequently found along roads, canals and railway tracks, where they can serve multiple purposes.

SC’s directives in March

The Haryana government’s notification came after the Supreme Court on March 4 directed all States and Union Territories to define what constitutes a “forest” and commence surveys to identify forest areas in their respective jurisdictions.

The court said that States and UTs must constitute expert committees within one month to identify “forest-like areas”, “unclassified forest lands”, and “community forest lands”, and that these committees must complete their mapping of forest lands and submit a report to the Centre within six months.

The court further said that “the process must strictly follow the 2011 Lafarge Umiam Mining guidelines, mandating a GIS-based decision-support database that includes — district-wise plots that may qualify as “forest” under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA); Core, buffer, and eco-sensitive zones of protected areas; important wildlife migratory corridors; lands diverted from forest use in the past; and supporting maps like TOPO-sheets and Forest Survey of India maps”.

Chief Secretaries of States and Administrators of UTs who fail to comply will be held “personally accountable for any non-compliance [with the court’s directives],” the court said.

Godavarman & the FCA

These directives were made in the challenge to the 2023 amendment to the FCA (Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. vs. Union of India) that the apex court is currently hearing. At the heart of both the amendment and the challenge to it is the question: “what constitutes a forest?”

The FCA of 1980 restricted “the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose”. The Act barred the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes without the prior approval of the Centre.

In 1996, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices J S Verma and Justice B N Kirpal in T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India ruled that the word ‘forest’, for the purposes of the FCA, “must be understood according to its dictionary meaning” which “covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise”. This was a landmark order: effectively, any parcel of forested land, regardless of size, official status or ownership, could be deemed a forest.

This widening of the applicability of the FCA, according to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 2023 amendment, was “restraining the authorities from undertaking any change in the land use and allowing any development or utility related work”. “Today, this (the FCA) comes in the way of building even toilets in schools for tribal girls,” Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav had said in Parliament while introducing the amendment. To resolve this issue, the amendment made the FCA applicable only to notified forests and lands that were identified as ‘forest’ in government records.

This amendment was challenged by a group of retired Indian Forest Service officers and NGOs such as Vanashakti and Goa Foundation who said that it “substantially diluted” the FCA. In February 2024, the apex court directed all UTs and State governments to follow Godavarman’s definition of ‘forest’ while it was hearing Ashok Kumar Sharma.

In March, the court issued the aforementioned directives, and asked the Centre to compile and consolidate reports submitted by all States and UTs. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for September 9.

Reactions to Haryana’s definition

Although Haryana constituted state- and district-level committees in April, surveys were stalled until a formal definition of “forest” was finalised. Officials say that “with the official notification… these committees can finally proceed clearing the path for surveys that determine which areas qualify as forests, a critical step in ensuring they gain protection under the FCA”.

But environmentalists have been critical of Haryana’s definition which, they say, creates “a very high threshold” for a land to be classified as forest.

“It is a pity that Haryana has blindly followed the lead of states like Goa in choosing a minimum threshold of 40% forest canopy cover to identify an area as a deemed forest,” forest analyst Chetan Agarwal told The Indian Express.

“The Aravallis in the south and west (of Haryana) get only 300 to 600 mm rainfall annually. This low rainfall and the rocky terrain creates tough conditions for growth of forests in the Aravalli. Vegetation here has adapted over millions of years into a stunted growth of thorny and dry deciduous species and scrub forest conditions,” he said, adding that “the decision to keep such a high threshold of forest cover will exclude much the Aravallis from the protective embrace of the FCA” and that this definition was prima facie violative of the 1996 Godavarman judgement.

“The minimum area threshold of 2 and 5 hectares is also unreasonably high for such a dry state and should have been kept at 1 and 2 hectares, respectively”, Agarwal added.