Panels set up in April, but survey held up as Haryana yet to define ‘forest'
The catch — both district- and state-level committees cannot begin work until the state finalises its definition of "forest by dictionary meaning" — a step that remains incomplete, effectively stalling the entire exercise.
In April, Haryana govt notified a state-level expert committee chaired by the additional chief secretary (environment, forests & wildlife). The panel includes senior officials from forest, revenue, agriculture, industries, town planning and urban local bodies departments.
You Can Also Check:
Gurgaon AQI
|
Weather in Gurgaon
|
Bank Holidays in Gurgaon
|
Public Holidays in Gurgaon
|
Gold Rates Today in Gurgaon
|
Silver Rates Today in Gurgaon
District-level committees headed by deputy commissioners were also constituted, comprising municipal commissioners, divisional forest officers and other key officials. But the terms for the committees allow them a month to two to carry out surveys and submit their reports, with one key condition: they can start work only after the state provides the forest definition.
On March 4, the Supreme Court ordered all states and UTs to first define "forest" and identify all such areas, including the Aravalis.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Treatment That Might Help You Against Knee Pain
Knee pain | search ads
Find Now
Undo
This exercise will allow protections to forest land under the Forest Conservation Act and prevent further loss of green cover in ecologically fragile zones.
Asked why the process was delayed, Haryana's principal chief conservator of forests Vineet Kumar Garg said on Wednesday, "We have sent the forest definition for finalisation to the state govt. We will start the process once it is final."
Experts and activists alleged that Haryana govts, over the decades, have avoided protecting Aravalis under FCA by stalling the process.
"This is planned disobedience of the Supreme Court's Godavarman judgment. Constituting committees without giving them the definition is a tactic to ensure no actual work is done. Haryana is trying to give away what little forest it has to private builders by not recognising it as forest," said RP Balwan, retired conservator of forests, Haryana (South).
The top court's March order came while hearing writ petitions challenging amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act.
Citing the 2011 Lafarge judgment, the court ordered states/UTs to form expert committees within a month and warned that state chief secretaries would be held personally responsible for any lapses.
The Lafarge order, linked to environmental approvals for mining in Meghalaya, had directed all states to identify and map forest land. This built on the landmark 1996 TN Godavarman case, which established that forests must be recognised based on the dictionary definition of "forest" — meaning any area with forest characteristics must be protected under FCA, regardless of its official status in govt records.
This "deemed forest" concept significantly widened FCA's scope.
However, successive Haryana govts have maintained there is no clear definition or criteria to identify forests.
Forest analyst Chetan Agarwal highlighted the administrative impasse and said. "Govt has created a Catch-22 situation. They formed committees in April to comply with the March court order but tied their hands by saying the forest definition will be issued by the state govt, which has still not materialised." The case will next be taken up by the SC on Sept 9, where Haryana govt may be required to explain why it is yet to come up with a definition for 'forest'.
Stay updated with the latest local news from your
city
on
Times of India
(TOI). Check upcoming
bank holidays
,
public holidays
, and current
gold rates
and
silver prices
in your area.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
28 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The streets are no place for dogs. If Delhi gets it right, it can set a precedent for the nation
Written by Harish Tiwari The Supreme Court's recent directive to remove free-roaming dogs from Delhi-NCR streets and place them in shelters within eight weeks is a landmark moment in India's decades-long struggle with stray dog management. It finally recognises what has long been evident — the streets are not the right place for man's best friend. But the real test will lie not in the order itself but in its execution. If Delhi gets it right, it can set a precedent for the nation. If it fails through haste or poor planning, other states will hesitate for years, and the issue could slide back into neglect. The CJI has, however, constituted a three-judge bench to hear the matter further and has reserved the order. For years, debate on this issue has been reduced to 'dog lovers versus dog bite victims,' a false binary that tries to portray the issue as compassion against cruelty. This framing ignores the critical expertise of other stakeholders — ecologists, veterinarians, epidemiologists, urban planners, and public health experts — who understand dog population dynamics, rabies epidemiology, and human–animal interactions. Their insights must guide implementation. The Court's directive gives municipalities political cover to act, but how they do so will decide whether this becomes a turning point or a cautionary tale. Large-scale removal of street dogs is not as simple as netting and relocating them. Without proper planning, shelters risk becoming overcrowded warehouses breeding disease, neglect, and public outrage. Quick-fix, unscientific solutions will fail and harm India's credibility internationally. What is needed is a phased, humane approach supported by robust, long-term capacity. Shelters should not be holding pens but well-designed facilities with sustainable capacity, veterinary care, isolation wards, sterilisation units, vaccination clinics, and enrichment spaces. Microchipping, photo identification, or tagging every dog can ensure real enumeration, traceability and prevent them from returning to the streets. Adoption must be central to the plan. Puppies and sociable adults can find homes through public adoption drives, coupled with proper screening and follow-up to prevent repeat abandonment. Beyond rehoming, Indian local dogs should be valued for their resilience and adaptability. They can be trained as guard dogs, search-and-rescue animals, or security partners for police and disaster response teams, changing public perception about them from nuisance to asset. A lasting solution also requires stopping the pipeline of new street dogs. Pet owners must be required to register, sterilise, and vaccinate their dogs, with strict penalties for abandonment. Public campaigns should promote responsible ownership as part of civic duty. Feeding dogs in public without taking responsibility for their health and behaviour is misplaced compassion that sustains the cycle of conflict. Public fear of dogs is real and must be respected, but it should be addressed by tackling the root causes of aggression. Instead of public feeding, contributions can be channelised to the shelter homes to develop a sustainable business model with perennial social benefits and A-class animal welfare. The writer is DBT Wellcome Trust India Alliance Intermediate Fellow, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati (IITG), and research affiliate, Sydney Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney
Scroll.in
28 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
SC criticises ‘completely vague' petitions against Gujarat's Vantara animal rescue centre
The Supreme Court on Thursday criticised two petitions alleging irregularities in animal rescue centre Vantara and the transfer of an ailing elephant from there, describing the pleas as 'completely vague', Live Law reported. However, the bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varela allowed the petitioners to amend their submissions, and scheduled the next hearing for August 25. The first petition demanded that a monitoring committee be set up to look into alleged irregularities at the Reliance Foundation-run Vantara, all captive elephants be returned to their owners and all wild animals at the facility be released back to the wild. The petitioner also questioned the transfer of an ailing elephant named Madhuri or Madhavi from the Kolhapur district to Vantara in Gujarat's Jamnagar. A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale, however, questioned how the petitioner could make allegations against the animal rescue centre without even making it a party to the plea. 'You implead them [as respondents] and then come back to us we will see,' the court said, according to PTI. In the second petition, the counsel for the petitioners said that Vantara had already been impleaded in the matter. Mithal, however, asked whether the petitioner had approached the Central Zoo Authority before approaching the Supreme Court. 'Don't file such vague petitions,' the court said, according to Live Law. 'We can't even understand the relief you are seeking.' For over 30 years, the elephant Madhuri had been at a Jain monastery, named the Swastishri Jinsen Bhattarak Pattacharya Mahaswami Sansthan Mutt, in Kolhapur's Nandani village. In July, the Bombay High Court ordered Madhuri's rehabilitation to Vantara, and the Supreme Court subsequently upheld the order. The elephant was moved to the Reliance Foundation-run centre in Gujarat on July 30, sparking protests in Kolhapur. On August 5, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis said that the state government will file a review petition in the Supreme Court seeking Madhuri's return to Kolhapur.
The Wire
28 minutes ago
- The Wire
Haryana: Supreme Court-Ordered Vote Recount Reverses 2022 Panchayat Poll Results
New Delhi: A Supreme Court-ordered recount of votes cast in a 2022 gram panchayat election in Haryana's Panipat has resulted in the reversal of results. This is the first exercise of its kind ordered by the Supreme Court. The case stems from panchayat elections held on November 2, 2022 in Panipat's Buana Lakhu village, in which Kuldeep Singh was declared elected over rival Mohit Kumar, the Tribune reported. The votes were recounted by Supreme Court OSD (Registrar) Kaveri in Kumar and Singh's presence and the entire process was recorded on camera. After the exercise was completed, it was found that Kumar had received 1,051 votes against Singh's 1,000 votes. "The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Election Officer, Panipat, is, accordingly, directed to issue a notification in this regard within two days declaring the appellant (Mohit Kumar) as the elected Sarpanch of the above-mentioned gram panchayat,' the court said in an order dated August 11. 'The appellant (Mohit Kumar) shall be entitled to assume the said office (of sarpanch) forthwith and perform his duties," the bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and N. Kotiswar Singh said. After the November elections, Kumar had filed an election petition challenging the result before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cum-Election Tribunal of Panipat in April. The tribunal on May 7 ordered a recount of votes cast at booth 69 in the village. However, the election tribunal's order was set aside by the Punjab and Haryana high court in July. Kumar then moved the Supreme Court, which ordered a recount of all votes cast at all booths during the panchayat elections. "Taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of this 1 case, the Deputy Commissioner and the District Election Officer, Panipat, Haryana is directed to produce all EVMs before the Registrar of this Court, to be nominated by the Secretary General, at 10 am on 06.08.2025. The nominated Registrar shall recount the votes, not only of the disputed booth but of all the booths. The recounting shall be duly video-graphed. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.1 or their authorized agents shall remain present at the time of recounting," the Supreme Court said in its July 31 order. A week later, OSD (Registrar) Kaveri recounted the 3,767 votes cast, after which Kumar emerged as the winner, the report said. 'There being prima facie no reason to doubt the report submitted by the OSD (Registrar) of this court, especially when the entire recounting has been duly video-graphed and its result is signed by the representatives of the parties, we are satisfied that the appellant (Mohit Kumar) deserves to be declared as the elected Sarpanch of the gram panchayat, Buana Lakhu village, District Panipat, Haryana in the election held on 22.11.2022,' the Supreme court said, setting aside the high court's verdict. The court said that the parties can still raise any remaining issues before the election tribunal.
