Forests can’t be used for non-forestry purposes: Supreme Court

Why in News ?

• The Supreme Court of India ruled that forest land cannot be diverted for non-forestry purposes (including agriculture) without prior statutory approvals.
• The ruling came while cancelling cultivation permissions granted by district authorities in Gujarat to a cooperative farming society over 134 acres of forest land.

Relevance

GS II (Polity & Governance)

• Federalism
• Rule of law
• Judicial review of executive action

GS III (Environment)

• Forest conservation
• Environmental legislation
• Sustainable development

Legal Background: The Forest (Conservation) Framework

• Core law: Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
• Section 2 of the Act:
  • Prohibits:
    • De-reservation of forests
    • Use of forest land for non-forest purposes
  • Unless prior approval of the Central Government is obtained.
• “Non-forest purpose” explicitly includes:
  • Agriculture
  • Mining
  • Industry
  • Infrastructure
  • Commercial plantations (other than permitted forestry activities)

What the Supreme Court Held ?

• Mandatory Central approval is a jurisdictional requirement, not a procedural formality.
• District collectors / state authorities:
  • Have no independent power to permit non-forest use.
  • Cannot bypass or dilute Section 2 safeguards.
• Cultivation on forest land, even if:
  • Cooperative-led
  • Livelihood-oriented
  • Administratively sanctioned
    → remains illegal without central clearance.

Key Constitutional & Jurisprudential Principles Reinforced

A. Environmental Rule of Law

• Statutory environmental protections override executive discretion.
• Administrative convenience ≠ legal authority.

B. Doctrine of Public Trust

• Forests are held by the State in trust for present and future generations.
• Cannot be alienated or repurposed casually.

C. Sustainable Development

• Economic activity allowed only within ecological limits.
• Agriculture ≠ environmentally benign by default if it degrades forests.

Federal Dimension: Centre–State Balance

• Forests fall under Concurrent List (42nd Constitutional Amendment).
• Central oversight under the Forest (Conservation) Act ensures:
  • Uniform national ecological standards.
  • Prevention of competitive forest diversion by states.
• Judgment reaffirms central supremacy in forest diversion approvals.

Administrative Lapses Highlighted

• District authorities:
  • Granted cultivation rights without legal competence.
  • Ignored statutory clearance procedures.
• Reflects systemic issues:
  • Weak legal literacy at district level.
  • Pressure to regularise encroachments post-facto.
  • Tension between short-term livelihoods and long-term ecology.

Implications of the Judgment

A. Governance Implications

• Strengthens enforcement of forest laws.
• Curtails discretionary misuse of land records and revenue powers.
• Signals zero tolerance for “administrative regularisation” of illegality.

B. Environmental Implications

• Protects forest cover from:
  • Gradual agricultural creep.
  • Fragmentation and biodiversity loss.
• Reinforces India’s climate commitments (carbon sinks).

C. Livelihood & Social Implications

• Raises concerns for:
  • Communities dependent on forest land.
• However:
  • Livelihood solutions must flow through legal routes:
    • Forest Rights Act, 2006
    • Agro-forestry policies
    • Rehabilitation & alternative land allocation

Interface with Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006

• Judgment does not dilute FRA rights.
• Distinction:
  • Recognised forest rights (individual/community) → legally protected.
  • Administrative cultivation permissions without FRA process → invalid.
• Reinforces need for:
  • Proper Gram Sabha-led FRA recognition, not executive shortcuts.

Critical Evaluation

• Strengths:
  • Upholds ecological constitutionalism.
  • Prevents piecemeal erosion of forest law.
• Concerns:
  • Requires parallel strengthening of:
    • FRA implementation
    • Livelihood alternatives
    • Administrative capacity at local levels

Conclusion

The Supreme Court has drawn a hard legal line: forests are ecological assets governed by statute, not revenue land open to administrative discretion—even for agriculture.

---