This famous case is unanimously reckoned as a landmark in the Indian legal and policy system for environmental protection and forestry management.
Driven by a letter that was penned by Godavarman Thirumulpad, a famous environmentalist, to the Supreme Court in 1995, it pointed out deforestation and timber smuggling within the Nilgiris region of Tamil Nadu as his major concern.
This prevailing judgment besides redefining the understanding of forest conservation also affected the interpretation and implementation of environmental laws in the country.
II. Facts and outcome
Writ Petition by T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
In 1995, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, known as "the green man" for his commitment to environmental conservation, initiated a petition to the Supreme Court through writ.
The objective of the petition was to stop the illegal cutting of the Sandalwood Forest that threatened the extinction of Sandalwood species.
Violation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
Thirumulpad alleged that the extraction of timber infringes Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 because the forest land may not be used for non-forestry purposes except if such operations have the proof of prior consent from the Central Government.
Subsequently, the issue of concern that arose in this case was what constitutes ‘forest’ and whether forest land could be diverted for non-forest purposes without any permissions. The case remarkably defined the term ‘forests’ and explained what constitutes a forest.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad is also known as the father of India's environmental jurisprudence. Image: Telegraph India
III. Redefining ‘forests’
In its ruling, the Supreme Court took a broad view of ‘forests’ which included not only the forests already recorded in government records but also corporate reservation forests (forests owned by a corporate body and not an individual) and public domain jungle areas.
Dictionary meaning of ‘forests’
In this case, the court applied the dictionary meaning of ‘forests’ which included areas where trees and other various vegetation have a dominant presence, irrelevant whether it is private or state property.
According to the court, the word ‘forests’ included the territory of reserved forests, protected forests, and unclassed areas. It also covered lands with tree plantations, private forests, and even the land without actual trees but with the imaginative title of ‘forests’ under special conditions.
Godavarman Judgment provided the most comprehensive definition of the word ‘forests’.
The court found its inner guidance in the Doctrine of Public Trust, which relates to the government's obligation to take care of natural resources in the larger interest of the public and not allow their mindless extraction or exploitation due to vested private interests.
This concept is based on the principle of intergenerational justice which envisages that it is imperative to take conservational steps today so that the resources can be preserved for the use and needs of future generations.
IV. Implications and landmark status
Godavarman verdict created a huge difference in the Indian Forests conservation programme and paved the way for stricter implementation of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The extension of the definition of forest proved that a large part of the land, on which the non-forestry activities took place, was in the control of the central government, which implied that businesses have to be registered and take special permissions before they could start their commercial activities under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The verdict tried to address the issue of uncontrolled deforestation and unsustainable forest use, maintaining the ecological balance and preserving the rich two-thirds of Indian biodiversity.
While delivering the judgment, SC also emphasized on conservation of forests not only for their ecological and economic benefits but also for the social ramifications it can have on constitutional principles such as the right to life under Article 21 and the directive principles of state policy - Article 48A requires the state to safeguard and improve the environment and protect the forests and wildlife.
It has been unequivocally stated by the SC in various judgments that the right to life comprises the right to a pure environment also.
Despite having won great fame as the landmark environmental case in the legal history of India, the Godavarman verdict finds itself riddled with several hurdles and roadblocks for implementation.
Moreover, the recent amendment made to the Forest (Conservation) Act in 2023 has laid down a new definition for forest and exempts certain development projects from seeking regulatory clearances, defeating the purpose behind the landmark ruling in the Godavaraman case.
According to the new amendment, lands that are classified as ‘forests’ under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 or any other law or recorded as ‘forests’ in the government records will only be considered as forest land.
However, SC in February 2024 in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd.) & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, challenging the constitutional validity of the 2023 amendment, stated that it would continue to go by the 1996 definition of ‘forests’ proposed in the Godavarman case.
Another challenge has been the identification of ‘forests’ as per the Godavarman judgment. This has proved to be an uphill task for the states and the process has led to long delays. From 1996 (when the judgment was passed) till now, the states have failed to produce exact information on lands identified as forests. The absence of exact information on the identified forest lands might result in the loss of forest areas that are still not recorded by the state governments.
Some critics hold the position that the verdict blatantly ignores the rights and livelihoods of the forest-dwelling and tribal communities, limiting their ability to obtain natural resources and liver according to their traditional practices.
Another criticism that has often been leveled against the historic ruling is that the judgment puts environment and conservation over development, undermining economic growth as well as infrastructure development in the forest areas.
VII. Conclusion
The Godavarman Judgment has led to a paradigm shift in forest conservation in India, disrupting the classical concepts and offering a more comprehensive approach to safeguard and conserve our forests and biodiversity.
It is the role of the judiciary to activate itself in pursuit of environmental policies, to uplift the principles of environmental protection that are enshrined in the constitution and also to recognize the existence of a relationship that is mutual between the environment and human beings.
The next big challenge is how to ensure efficient implementation of the Godavarman decision, reconciling it with the recent amendment made to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 which provides for a new definition of the forest.
Adopting a comprehensive methodology that is based on science, legally sound and takes into consideration the social aspects of forest conservation, can be the first step towards a meaningful implementation of the forest laws.
Siddharth Reddy is a third-year law student at the School of Law, UPES. He is currently a Research Intern with TA.
TA is a Bhopal-based policy and development consulting group. We are on a mission to make the development space more inclusive and democratic for students and professionals. Join us on this mission.
