Tue Mar 04 16:48:44 UTC 2025: **Supreme Court Holds States Accountable for Forest Land Record Delays**
New Delhi, March 5, 2025 — The Supreme Court issued a strong warning on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, holding Chief Secretaries of States and Union Territory Administrators personally liable for failing to comply with its orders regarding forest land consolidation. The court’s directive stems from ongoing litigation challenging amendments to the Forest Act of 2023, which petitioners argue restrict the definition of “forest,” potentially excluding vast tracts of land from protection.
The court’s order mandates the formation of expert committees within one month to identify forests, followed by the compilation of consolidated records within the next six months. This action is required to adhere to a 1996 Supreme Court judgment and subsequent orders defining “forest” broadly. The court noted that most states have yet to fulfill these requirements.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati informed the court that many states have failed to constitute the mandated expert committees and complete the consolidation of forest land records under Rule 16(1) of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam Rules, 2023. This rule aims to protect “forest-like areas” under the conservation law.
The petitioners, represented by advocates Prashant Bhushan and others, argue that the 2023 amendments could exclude approximately 1.97 lakh sq.km. of land from forest protection, potentially causing ecological damage. While the Centre has agreed to refrain from precipitate action, the court remains focused on the states’ compliance with its longstanding directives. The court emphasized the crucial role of forest identification in preserving these areas, including degraded or cleared lands and private plantations.
The Supreme Court directed states and Union Territories to submit a report on their progress to the central government, which will then present it to the court. Concerns were also raised regarding a February 3rd order that allows the use of forest land for linear projects with compensatory afforestation, potentially creating a loophole. The court, however, declined to address this concern based on assumptions.
First Piper 