Category: Forest and Wildlife

ISSUE:

Whether the meaning of "forest" under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 should be understood in its dictionary sense, covering all forests, irrespective of ownership and classification?

Whether prior approval of the Central Government is required under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for any non-forest activity, including mining and timber operations, within a forest area?

Whether State Governments can independently permit activities in forest areas without adhering to the requirements of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980?

RULE:

The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted to prevent further deforestation and ecological imbalance. The term "forest" must be interpreted broadly to fulfill this purpose, encompassing all statutorily recognized forests as well as areas recorded as forests in government records, regardless of ownership. A restrictive interpretation would defeat the legislative intent.

The requirement of prior approval under Section 2 of the Act is absolute and non-negotiable. Any non-forest activity within a forest area, including sawmills, veneer mills, plywood mills, and mining, is impermissible without explicit approval from the Central Government. The nature of ownership or classification of land does not affect this requirement.

State Governments have no discretion to permit the use of forest land for non-forest purposes. The power to approve such activities rests solely with the Central Government to ensure uniformity in forest conservation efforts across the country. Any permission granted by a State Government without Central approval is void and contrary to law.

ISSUE:

Whether the decision to reject environmental clearance for the construction of a mine because of its impact on indigenous tribes is lawful.

RULE:

Agriculture was the only source of livelihood for the tribes concerned, apart from the collection and sale of minor forest produce to supplement their income. The tribes had great emotional attachments to their lands. The United Nations Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples notes that tribal forest dwellers have a right to maintain their distinctive spiritual relationship with their traditionally owned or otherwise occupied and used lands.

ISSUE:

Whether the impugned provisions of the act in question are violative of Article 19 (1) (g), where the right of appellants to practice their profession of ivory trade was being curbed,

Whether this prohibition on traders was unreasonable and arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution?

RULE:

Trade in imported ivory, which is dangerous to ecology, has been regulated by imposing total prohibition under the Wildlife (Protection) Amending Act of 1991. Such an Amending Act indirectly seeks to protect Indian elephants and to arrest their further depletion.