Court’s decision
The Supreme Court issued a detailed set of directions reiterating the binding nature of earlier forest conservation rulings governing diversion of forest land. It emphasised that the statutory regime under the Forest (Conservation) Act must be strictly implemented and that no mining, infrastructure expansion, extraction, or related activities may continue inside forest areas without appropriate prior approval. The Court strengthened the monitoring mechanism by restructuring oversight committees, clarifying their jurisdiction, and ensuring uniform implementation across States. It held that all existing activities inconsistent with forest protection norms must be reviewed and subjected to fresh appraisal through central authorities.
Facts
The proceedings arise from continuing supervisory jurisdiction exercised by the Supreme Court in a long-standing matter concerning protection of forest land across India. Various issues regarding mining operations, road construction, quarrying, and non-forest activities in ecologically sensitive zones were brought to the Court’s attention by committees constituted under previous orders. Multiple States had permitted activities within protected and forest areas without compliance with the Forest (Conservation) Act. The Court found persistent violations such as unauthorised excavations, extraction of minerals without renewal of clearances, and absence of proper monitoring mechanisms. It undertook a comprehensive review of the institutional framework governing forest approvals and compliance.
Issues
The Supreme Court addressed the following core questions:
- Whether the monitoring committees earlier constituted continued to be effective in regulating forest diversion and mining activities.
- Whether States could permit extraction, construction, or use of forest land without obtaining prior approval from the central authorities.
- Whether the institutional overlap between committees created ambiguity in enforcement.
- Whether updated guidelines and procedural clarifications were required to ensure full compliance with forest conservation law.
- Whether existing mining operations and non-forest activity needed independent appraisal.
Petitioner’s arguments
The petitioners contended that despite repeated Supreme Court directions, States continued to allow illegal mining, unregulated extraction, and construction inside notified forest areas. They argued that multiple committees functioning simultaneously under earlier orders caused conflicting directions and weakened enforcement. They submitted that violations persisted because States authorised activities without prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, defeating the object of the legislation. The petitioners emphasised the need for a centralised and accountable mechanism capable of monitoring compliance, checking ground-level encroachments, reviewing ongoing projects, and ensuring timely reporting to the Court.
Respondent’s arguments
The respondents, representing the Union and States, argued that several corrective steps had been taken, including periodic inspections, confiscation of illegally extracted materials, and initiation of proceedings against violators. They contended that existing committees were functioning properly and that decentralised monitoring ensured faster redressal. Some States argued that certain activities did not amount to “diversion of forest land” and were permissible under local laws. They submitted that new committees could create further administrative burden and duplication. Others sought procedural clarity instead of structural reorganisation.
Analysis of the law
The Court reaffirmed that the Forest (Conservation) Act establishes a non-derogable principle that no non-forest activity may occur on forest land without prior approval from the central government. It reiterated that diversion of forest land cannot be justified by reliance on local permissions, executive orders, or economic exigencies. The Court emphasised that past judgments created a mandatory framework requiring detailed scrutiny of every proposal concerning forest areas. Any deviation undermines environmental rule of law. It clarified that oversight mechanisms must ensure transparency, periodic audits, and accountability. It also held that all ongoing non-forest activities must be brought within statutory compliance regardless of past permissions.
Precedent analysis
The Court’s ruling draws heavily from earlier landmark decisions forming the foundational principles of forest governance in India:
T.N. Godavarman line of cases
These cases established that “forest” must be interpreted in a broad ecological sense and that no activity inconsistent with forest protection can be permitted without central approval. The present judgment builds upon and operationalises these principles.
Prior orders restructuring monitoring committees
Earlier orders had created various supervisory bodies; however, the Court found overlap and clarified their mandates.
Forest (Conservation) Act jurisprudence
Consistent rulings affirm that environmental protection is paramount and procedural compliance is mandatory. The Court relied on these precedents to strengthen oversight and avoid dilution of statutory safeguards.
Court’s reasoning
The Court held that forest conservation cannot be left to fragmented oversight. It found that earlier committees, though well-intentioned, lacked a unified command structure and created uncertainty on enforcement. It observed that violations occurred due to inconsistent interpretation of what constitutes non-forest activity and due to procedural lapses by State authorities. The Court emphasised that “no activity inside forest land is permissible unless approved” and that committees must operate within clearly defined boundaries. It also held that illegal or irregular activities must be stopped, reviewed, and subjected to fresh appraisal under statutory mandates. The Court thus issued comprehensive structural directions to consolidate oversight.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court strengthened the forest protection regime by reaffirming that prior approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act is mandatory for any diversion or non-forest activity. It clarified the powers and responsibilities of monitoring committees, directed reorganisation for efficiency, and ensured that all pending and ongoing activities in forest land would be reassessed for compliance. The Court emphasised the constitutional importance of preserving ecological integrity and directed authorities to act immediately to enforce the law rigorously. States and agencies must now align all actions with the clarified framework.
Implications
This judgment reinforces India’s forest governance architecture by preventing States from bypassing statutory approvals. It strengthens monitoring, enhances transparency, and mandates reassessment of all ongoing extraction, mining, and development activities inside forest land. The ruling will significantly impact infrastructure projects, mining leases, and land-use permissions in ecologically sensitive zones. The Court’s reaffirmation of non-negotiable statutory compliance strengthens environmental jurisprudence and ensures that conservation objectives remain central. It also signals strict judicial scrutiny of any attempt to dilute forest protections.
FAQs
1. Can any activity inside forest land continue without central government approval?
No. The Court reaffirmed that prior approval is mandatory for any diversion or non-forest activity inside forest land.
2. Will ongoing mining or extraction be automatically permitted?
No. All ongoing activities must undergo fresh compliance review to ensure conformity with statutory and judicial mandates.
3. Do States have independent authority to permit forest land use?
No. State permissions cannot override the Forest (Conservation) Act or Supreme Court directions.
