Haryana defines forest, ‘as per dictionary'
In a gazette notification issued August 18, the state government said it was 'pleased to define the expression 'forest as per dictionary meaning'' with restrictive technical criteria that environmental activists say could exclude most of the state's remaining Aravalli forests from legal protection.
The definition requires forest areas to have a minimum canopy density of 40% and cover at least five hectares if isolated, or two hectares if connected to government-notified forests. It explicitly excludes 'all linear, compact, agro-forestry plantations and orchards situated outside the government notified forests.'
The move follows an order issued by a three-judge Supreme Court bench on February 19, 2024, which directed all states to use the broad 'dictionary meaning' established in the landmark December 12, 1996 TN Godavarman case.
At the time, the court ruled ordered that states 'need to go by the dictionary definition of the word forest to determine whether any work can be approved on any land'. Dictionaries typically describe forests similar to the following Oxford Learner's Dictionary definition: 'large areas of land thickly covered with trees'.
A Haryana forest official said the state would now 'constitute an expert committee to identify the forest areas in the state as per the newly defined dictionary meaning criteria.' The report will be submitted to the central government, which will place it before the Supreme Court.
The redefinition, activists say, will deal a blow to the Aravalli forests, especially the 40% canopy density requirement for a region that has naturally adapted to dry conditions with scrub and open forest cover.
'Even Asola Bhatti wildlife sanctuary in Delhi Aravallis and contiguous to Gurgaon and Faridabad Aravallis would not meet this high threshold. The minimum area threshold of two and five hectares is also unreasonably high for such a dry state and should have been kept at 1 and 2 hectares respectively,' environment activist Chetan Agarwal said.
Agarwal explained that while the northern Shivaliks receive 1000-1200mm of annual rainfall, the Aravallis in the south and west get just 300-600mm annually. 'This low rainfall and the rocky terrain creates tough conditions for growth of the Aravallis forests and therefore the Aravalli vegetation has adapted over millions of years into a stunted growth of thorny and dry deciduous species and scrub forest conditions.'
'At least in the Aravalli hills the open forest (10-40%) and scrub (0-10%) categories should have been treated as forest as per dictionary meaning and 10% should have been the threshold in the rest of the state,' Agarwal said. 'The decision to keep such a high threshold of forest cover of 40% will further exclude much of the potential deemed forest of the Aravallis from the protective embrace of the Forest Conservation Act and may facilitate opening them up to the ravages of the licences of Town and Country Planning and Mining departments and their clients.'
The Supreme Court's 2024 ruling gave the Union government two weeks to issue a circular directing states to comply with the 1996 ruling, gave states until March 31 to submit reports on identified forest lands, and ordered the Centre to digitise and publish these records on the environment ministry website by April 15.
Since then, the top has escalated pressure on states to comply with the broad forest definition. The original challenge arose because the Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023 would have legalised all forest diversions between 1980 and 1996, while stripping protection from unrecorded forests. Retired forest officials and other petitioners successfully challenged these provisions, leading the court to reaffirm that all forests meeting the dictionary definition must receive protection regardless of ownership status.
A subsequent order on March 4, 2025, directed that identified forest lands must be geo-referenced according to the court's 2011 Lafarge order guidelines, which mandated creation of a comprehensive GIS-based decision support database containing district-wise details of forest boundaries, protected area buffers, wildlife corridors, and previously diverted forest lands.
The Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change was given six months until September 2025 to submit comprehensive reports obtained from states. The court specifically cautioned that forest identification should follow the 1996 Godavarman order 'in letter and spirit.'
A retired forest official and forestry expert was more blunt in his assessment: 'The step by Haryana in drastically restricting the definition of forests is against the Godavarman order of 1996 which is illegal, mischievous and malicious. It is with the sole purpose of eliminating most forests from protection violating the directions of SC orders of 12.12.96 in WP 202/96, 19/02/2024 and 04/03/2025 in WP 1164/23.'
The expert argued that Haryana's approach was 'unscientific and makes a laughing stock of the forest department of Haryana which very well knows that forests are identified by their ecological value and not tree stands like any layman would do.'
'By such a definition, all grasslands, wetlands, 'wastelands' - shallow soils with little tree growth but ecologically rich with its wildlife will get excluded and decimated. This is only being done to help contractors, miners and other destructive forces of forests and this should not be allowed.'
The official emphasised the urgency of proper forest protection: 'This is especially important in these times of extreme climate events sweeping across the country and while we are experiencing climate change in its most active form. Haryana too had been impacted by floods and heavy rainfall and the only protection against this is to conserve our forests and ecologically vital areas.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
44 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
PIL in Supreme Court seeks SIT probe into Rahul Gandhi's 'vote theft' allegations
NEW DELHI: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court by advocate and Congress member Rohit Pandey, seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) headed by a former judge to probe the alleged large-scale manipulation of electoral rolls in Mahadevapura Assembly constituency in Bengaluru Central and other constituencies during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Speaking to TNIE, Pandey said his petition, which he described as 'very sensitive' and concerning 'voters, fake voters,' could come up for hearing in the apex court within a week. He moved the court citing allegations made by Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Congress leader Rahul Gandhi at a press conference on August 7. In his petition, a copy of which was accessed by TNIE, Pandey also sought directions that no further revision or finalisation of electoral rolls be undertaken until the Court's orders are complied with and an independent audit of the rolls is completed. "Frame and issue binding guidelines to the Election Commission of India to ensure transparency, accountability, and integrity in the preparation, maintenance, and publication of electoral rolls, including mechanisms for detection and prevention of duplicate or fictitious entries," Pandey stated in his petition. He further requested that the Supreme Court direct the Election Commission of India (ECI) to publish electoral rolls in accessible, machine-readable and OCR-compliant formats to enable meaningful verification, audit and public scrutiny. "What is at stake here is not the outcome of a single electoral contest, but the integrity and credibility of the electoral roll itself, the bedrock upon which the entire democratic process stands. When the electoral roll is corrupted by wrongful deletions and fraudulent insertions, the right to vote ceases to be equally accessible to all citizens, undermining the constitutional promise of universal adult suffrage," Pandey argued. The petition noted that the PIL was prompted by 'serious allegations of electoral roll manipulation' in Mahadevapura, which is part of the Bengaluru Central Lok Sabha constituency in Karnataka. The allegations made by Gandhi relate to the deletion of thousands of legitimate voters' names and the inclusion of fictitious or duplicate entries, allegedly with the involvement of political operatives and local officials. "The material disclosed in the press conference includes extracts from the electoral roll, showing identical names in multiple polling parts; and entries linked to non-existent or commercial addresses and other forms of manipulation. Independent citizen verification reportedly confirmed the bogus and duplicate entries," the plea said. Pointing to what it called severe lacunae in the functioning of the ECI, the plea contended that such large-scale tampering, if proven, would undermine the constitutional mandate of 'one person, one vote' under Articles 325 and 326, dilute the value of lawful votes, and violate the principles of equality and due process.
Deccan Herald
44 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
Ground Report Fears Linger About Citizenship Status and Voting Rights
The Bihar Special Intensive Revision of electoral roles has turned into a political Supreme Court weighed in on the legitimacy of the exercise, and the Opposition parties have targeted the Election Commission of the issue snowballs into a political battle for the upcoming Bihar elections, Deccan Herald's Satish Jha travels across the state to meet the people most affected by the exercise — and with the least say in the matter.
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
‘Vote Chori' Row: PIL in SC seeks SIT probe into Rahul Gandhi's allegations against EC
A public interest litigation has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking an SIT probe into the 'vote chori' allegations made by Rahul Gandhi against the BJP and Election Commission (EC). The PIL, filed by a lawyer, advocate Rohit Pandey, seeks directions from the Supreme Court to construct a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and look into the accusations made by the Leader of Opposition (LoP) at the Lok Sabha in recent days. Gandhi has alleged that there has been a large-scale electoral roll manipulation in Bengaluru Central and several other constituencies during Lok Sabha elections. "Upon coming across credible revelations, including a press conference dated 07.08.2025 by the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Mr. Rahul Gandhi, alleging large-scale manipulation of genuine voters' names, and inclusion of fictitious entries in the electoral rolls of the Mahadevapura Assembly Constituency (falling within the Bengaluru Central Parliamentary Constituency), the Petitioner became gravely concerned, as such actions, if true, strike at the core of the "one person, one vote" principle enshrined under Articles 325 and 326 of the Constitution," the plea states. The petitioner further said that upon independently verifying the authenticity of the reports cited through publicly available government data, it was found that there was sufficient prima facie material indicating that the allegations reveal a systemic attempt to dilute and distort the value of lawful votes. It therefore sought an urgent intervention from the Supreme Court. 'The allegations of dilution of the purity of electoral rolls directly undermines the constitutional vision of free and fair elections in the eyes of the community at large,' it says. The plea also urges the SC to give directions to frame and issue binding guidelines to the Election Commission to ensure transparency, accountability and integrity in the preparation, maintenance and publication of electoral rolls, including mechanisms for detection and prevention of duplicate or fictitious entries. It also sought a direction to the EC to publish electoral rolls in accessible, machine-readable and OCR-compliant formats to enable meaningful verification, audit and public scrutiny.
