Why in news?

Recently, the Haryana government officially defined the “dictionary meaning of forest.” Officials stated that the definition draws on Supreme Court precedents and aligns with judicial expectations.

However, environmentalists have raised strong concerns, arguing that the definition is too narrow and could exclude the Aravalli ridge, an ecologically fragile region.

Such exclusion may leave it vulnerable to unchecked urbanisation, illegal mining, and real estate encroachments, threatening biodiversity and groundwater recharge in one of North India’s most critical ecosystems.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Haryana’s Definition of Forests
• Supreme Court’s Directives on Forest Definition
• Godavarman Case, FCA and the 2023 Amendment
• Reactions to Haryana’s Forest Definition

Haryana’s Definition of Forests

• 
• Recently, Haryana’s Environment, Forest and Wildlife Department issued a notification officially defining forests under the “dictionary meaning.”
• According to the notification:
  • A patch of land will qualify as a forest if it has:
  • A minimum area of five hectares in isolation, or
  • A minimum area of two hectares if contiguous with government-notified forests.
  • It must also have a canopy density of at least 0.4 (40%).
• Exclusions from Definition
  • The notification excludes the following from being treated as forests:
    • Linear, compact, or agro-forestry plantations.
    • Orchards outside government-notified forests.
  • These exclusions cover tree plantations along roads, canals, and railway tracks, which, though ecologically beneficial, will not be classified as forests under this definition.

Supreme Court’s Directives on Forest Definition

• In its March 2025 ruling, the Supreme Court directed all States and Union Territories to formally define what constitutes a forest and begin comprehensive surveys to identify forest areas within their jurisdictions.
• Key Instructions from the Court
  • Expert Committees: Each State/UT was required to set up a committee within one month to identify: Forest-like areas; Unclassified Forest lands; Community Forest lands.
  • Survey and Mapping: The committees must map forest lands and submit their reports to the Centre within six months.
  • Use of 2011 Guidelines: The process must strictly follow the 2011 Lafarge Umiam Mining guidelines, which mandate:
    • GIS-based decision-support database.
    • District-wise mapping of plots that may qualify as forests under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA).
    • Inclusion of core, buffer, and eco-sensitive zones of protected areas.
    • Identification of wildlife corridors, lands diverted from forest use, and supporting maps such as TOPO-sheets and Forest Survey of India maps
• Accountability
  • The Court made it clear that Chief Secretaries of States and Administrators of UTs would be held personally accountable for non-compliance with its directives.

Godavarman Case, FCA and the 2023 Amendment

• At the centre of the current Supreme Court hearings on the 2023 amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980 lies the core question: “What constitutes a forest?”
• FCA, 1980 – Original Scope
  • The FCA of 1980 restricted the dereservation of forests or the use of forest land for non-forest purposes.
  • No diversion of forest land was permitted without prior approval from the Centre.
• Godavarman Ruling, 1996
  • In a landmark judgment (T N Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India), the Supreme Court expanded the meaning of ‘forest’.
  • It held that the term must be understood in its dictionary meaning, covering all statutorily recognised forests — whether reserved, protected, or otherwise.
  • This effectively meant that any forested parcel of land, regardless of size, ownership, or official classification, could fall under the FCA.
• The 2023 Amendment and Subsequent Legal Battle
  • According to the government, the wide applicability of the FCA following Godavarman was restraining development and utility-related works, even minor projects like building toilets in tribal schools.
  • To address this, the 2023 amendment restricted FCA applicability only to:
    • Notified forests, and
    • Lands identified as forests in government records.
    • Challenge to the Amendment
  • Retired IFS officers and NGOs such as Vanashakti and Goa Foundation challenged the amendment, arguing that it substantially diluted protections under the FCA.
  • In February 2024, the Supreme Court directed all States and UTs to continue following Godavarman’s broader definition of forests while it considered the case (Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) & Ors. vs. Union of India).
• Court’s March 2025 Directives
  • The Court then issued detailed instructions requiring States/UTs to define forests, conduct surveys, and submit reports to the Centre, aligning with 2011 Lafarge Umiam Mining guidelines.
  • The matter is ongoing, with the next Supreme Court hearing scheduled in September 2025.

Reactions to Haryana’s Forest Definition

• Environmentalists have strongly criticised the definition, calling it too restrictive.
• Forest analysts argue that the minimum canopy cover threshold of 40% is unrealistic for the Aravalli region, which is naturally arid, with low rainfall and rocky terrain.
• The region’s vegetation — thorny, dry deciduous vegetation due to low rainfall and rocky terrain.
• According to them, this narrow definition contradicts the 1996 Supreme Court Godavarman judgment, which required a broader, dictionary-based interpretation of forests.
• They further pointed out that the minimum area requirement of 2 to 5 hectares is unreasonably high for a dry state like Haryana.
• In their view, a more practical threshold would have been 1 to 2 hectares, ensuring that smaller but ecologically vital forest patches are not left unprotected.