Latest news with #Godavarman
Time of India
5 days ago
- General
- Time of India
Panels set up in April, but survey held up as Haryana yet to define ‘forest'
Gurgaon: Months after the Supreme Court ordered all states and Union territories to define "forest" and map all such areas, not a single survey has been carried out as part of the exercise in Haryana despite the state govt establishing expert committees in April. 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.
New Indian Express
07-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Experts filed petition express concern of loss of natural forest due to flawed compensatory afforestation
Former bureaucrats and forest officials have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking intervention against the government's unlawful implementation of the Compensatory Afforestation Scheme (CAS) on designated forest land. Under CAS, if forest land is diverted for non-forestry purposes, an equal area of non-forest land should be afforested to compensate for the loss. However, the petition stresses that the government's current implementation of CAS violates a Supreme Court order dated 3 February 2025. In its interim order, the Supreme Court restrained the Centre and State governments from cutting down forest areas without providing compensatory land. 'There have been multiple instances of compensatory afforestation being permitted on degraded notified forests, Revenue forests, and other unclassed forests that are statutorily protected, as per this Hon'ble Court's directions in the Godavarman order of 12 December 1996. The order dated 3 February 2025 also prohibits such diversions,' the petition states.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Conflict of interest' in CEC may compromise FCAA cases: Retired bureaucrats write to CJI
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A group of 60 former civil servants has written to the Chief Justice of India, claiming that a "conflict of interest" in the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) could compromise the outcome of cases challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act, their open letter dated June 30, the signatories, including former secretaries, ambassadors, police chiefs and forest officers, said the four-member CEC currently includes three former Indian Forest Service officers and a retired scientist who also worked with the environment ministry for many years. There are no independent experts on the letter said two CEC members recently retired as Director General of Forests and Special Secretary in the environment ministry."A CEC comprising officers who had held the highest positions in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and were closely involved in policy-making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court , advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government," the letter retired civil servants, part of the Constitutional Conduct Group, said the CEC, formed in 2002, had a balanced composition until earlier CEC included not only government experts but also two independent members -- a wildlife specialist and a Supreme Court advocate -- who had neither held senior government positions nor been involved in forest policy decisions, "thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest", they 2023, a group of individuals challenged the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) in the Supreme Court, saying that it would hasten forest decline. In this matter, the court has issued four orders, including one upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996. The case is pending final retired officials pointed out that a current CEC member, while serving in the environment ministry, had "prepared and defended" the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill before the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Act, its rules and guidelines were all notified during that said several memos allowing use of degraded, notified and revenue forests for compensatory afforestation, which goes against the 1996 Godavarman judgment, were also issued during the tenure of some present CEC signatories feared that the outcome of the cases against the FCAA 2023, "may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC", as the Supreme Court might rely on the CEC's advice before making its final advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, in cases that challenge the FCAA 2023, "will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed and will thus represent a clear conflict of interest", the letter retired officials said this concern is already reflected in the recent Supreme Court order on Maharashtra's 'zudpi' forests (scrub forests).The court's order dated May 22, 2025, relied heavily on the CEC's advice, which recommended the untrammelled use of these forests for "compensatory afforestation", considering them ecologically inferior as they cannot support dense forest former bureaucrats urged the court to ensure that the CEC includes not just retired government officials but also independent experts from outside, saying there are many such experts in the requested the chief justice not to allow the current CEC to advise the court in the FCAA 2023 cases or other important matters related to forests, wildlife and ecological signatories to the letter included Prakriti Srivastava, former principal chief conservator of forests, Kerala, Navrekha Sharma, former ambassador to Indonesia, N C Saxena, former secretary of the erstwhile Planning Commission, and K Sujatha Rao, former health secretary.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Conflict of interest in CEC may affect FCAA cases: Retired officers to CJI
A group of 60 former civil servants has written to the Chief Justice of India, claiming that a "conflict of interest" in the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) could compromise the outcome of cases challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023. In their open letter dated June 30, the signatories, including former secretaries, ambassadors, police chiefs and forest officers, said the four-member CEC currently includes three former Indian Forest Service officers and a retired scientist who also worked with the environment ministry for many years. There are no independent experts on the panel. The letter said two CEC members recently retired as Director General of Forests and Special Secretary in the environment ministry. "A CEC comprising officers who had held the highest positions in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and were closely involved in policy-making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government," the letter read. The retired civil servants, part of the Constitutional Conduct Group, said the CEC, formed in 2002, had a balanced composition until 2023. The earlier CEC included not only government experts but also two independent members -- a wildlife specialist and a Supreme Court advocate -- who had neither held senior government positions nor been involved in forest policy decisions, "thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest", they said. In 2023, a group of individuals challenged the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) in the Supreme Court, saying that it would hasten forest decline. In this matter, the court has issued four orders, including one upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996. The case is pending final hearing. The retired officials pointed out that a current CEC member, while serving in the environment ministry, had "prepared and defended" the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill before the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Act, its rules and guidelines were all notified during that time. They said several memos allowing use of degraded, notified and revenue forests for compensatory afforestation, which goes against the 1996 Godavarman judgment, were also issued during the tenure of some present CEC members. The signatories feared that the outcome of the cases against the FCAA 2023, "may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC", as the Supreme Court might rely on the CEC's advice before making its final decision. Any advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, in cases that challenges the FCAA 2023, "will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed and will thus represent a clear conflict of interest", the letter said. The retired officials said this concern is already reflected in the recent Supreme Court order on Maharashtra's 'zudpi' forests (scrub forests). The court's order dated May 22, 2025 relied heavily on the CEC's advice, which recommended the untrammelled use of these forests for 'compensatory afforestation', considering them ecologically inferior as they cannot support dense forest cover. The former bureaucrats urged the court to ensure that the CEC includes not just retired government officials but also independent experts from outside, saying there are many such experts in the country. They requested the chief justice not to allow the current CEC to advise the court in the FCAA 2023 cases or other important matters related to forests, wildlife and ecological security.
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Do Zudpi Lands Get ‘Forest' Protection? SC To Deliver Verdict Today
Nagpur: The Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on Thursday in the long-pending matter concerning the Maharashtra govt's move to denotify over 86,409 hectares of zudpi jungle in Vidarbha. The judgment, according to court sources, will be pronounced by a bench led by newly appointed Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai. The decision is expected to significantly affect development in Vidarbha, where several public infrastructure projects have been stalled due to the legal ambiguity surrounding zudpi lands — forest land in official records but often used for non-forest purposes. The litigation challenges a series of govt resolutions (GRs) and policy changes between 2014 and 2018 that facilitated easier diversion of these lands without adhering to the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980. Originally, in 1961, the state had 9.23 lakh hectares of zudpi jungle, of which 6.55 lakh hectares were classified as protected or reserved forests. Of the remaining 2.68 lakh hectares, 92,115 hectares were found suitable for forestry, with 73,211 hectares already notified as reserved forest under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. From the balance 1.76 lakh hectares, over 89,768 hectares were reportedly diverted for non-forest use by 1992. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The remaining 86,409 hectares now form the core of the Supreme Court proceedings. Environmentalists argue that these lands are protected under the Supreme Court's December 12, 1996, judgment in the landmark Godavarman case (WP 202/1995), which defined 'forest land' to include any area recorded as forest, regardless of ownership or use. They questioned the legal validity of the March 4, 2014, GR that diluted procedural safeguards, and subsequent policies issued in 2017 and 2018 that eased diversion and permitted land transfers without central clearance. "Zudpi lands are unique to Vidarbha and have no equivalent classification in any other part of India," said one petitioner, highlighting how these tracts have remained in legal limbo for decades, stalling essential infrastructure such as schools, health centres, water supply networks, and even public institutions. A six-member panel headed by then divisional commissioner Anoop Kumar had recommended denotifying the land as forest and reclassifying it as revenue land. With multiple parties awaiting clarity — including development agencies, state departments, and environmentalists — the Supreme Court verdict is expected to set a precedent not only for Vidarbha but for land governance policy in other forested regions too.
