Case Analysis: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Others. (1997) 2 SCC 267.

Author: Dhanashree Nagulwar.

CITATION

(1997) 2 SCC 267.

NAMES OF THE PARTIES

Petitioner: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad

Respondent: Union of India

JUDGES

Justice J.S. Verma;

Justice B.N. Kirpal.

INTRODUCTION

India is facing a huge loss of forest resources which is a concerning issue. Various acts, guidelines, plans, goals, etc. have been created for the protection of forest land. However, the alarming condition of forests increases day by day and it puts environmentalists in an anxious state. One such ecologist popularly called ‘the green man’, T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad had accomplished a work that resulted in a landmark judgment delivered by the Apex Court regarding protection and conservation of India’s forest lands. Let’s now wander into the forest case and understand the genesis of this writ petition filed by T.N. Godavarman.

FACTS

• In September 1995, conservationist Godavarman Thirumulpad became anguished by perceiving the devastating condition of the immaculate wooded locations of Gudalur in Nilgiris forest, Tamil Nadu.((P.K. Manohar and Praveen Bhargava, “The Architect of an omnibus forest protection case”, Opinion, The Hindu, July 05, 2016. <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/The-architect-of-an-omnibus-forest-protection-case/article14470903.ece>))
• The tropical rainforest in Gudalur and Nilgiris was under the control of the state of Kerala. However, the state failed to take care of the forestland and it followed a severe disparity in ecology which affected the livelihoods of people residing in the nearby area.
• Trees were felled and logs were rolled down to the mountain slopes upsetting the highways. Encroachers trespassed on the land who have collusion with the respondents, aimlessly cutting down valuable trees such as Ayni trees, Rosewood, and Teak which were exclusively found in the forests of Nilgiris.
• To obtain more profits, encroachers who were the timber contractors along with the government agencies planned for such non-forestry activities. The loss of these precious trees was not temporary and reparable.
• The complete forest land was destructed by the random felling of trees. It disturbed the ecological system of that region. It had adversely affected the environment, plants, and animals living in the forest.
• The inhabitants residing in that region were deprived of a clean and pollution- free environment which was a violation of Article 21 of the fundamental rights mentioned in Part III of the Constitution.

ISSUES

The questions in dispute raised were:

1. Whether the usage of timber is justified for commercial purposes?
2. Have non-forestry activities violated the new interpretation of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and forest land?

JUDGMENT

Honorable Supreme Court ordered the Central government and all the State governments to undertake the necessary remedial measures for the protection and conservation of forest land in the country without any further delay. Prior approval is necessary to carry out any non-forest activity within the area of any forest, as defined in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. Activities like the running of sawmills of veneer or plywood mills or mining of any mineral are hence not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. These activities are prima facie violations of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act 1980. In the forests of Arunachal Pradesh namely, Tirap and Changlang, there would be a prohibition of any type of felling of trees. All the sawmills, and plywood mills in AP and also within the distance of 100 km from its border, in Assam shall also be ceased with an immediate effect. The State Governments of both states must make sure that there is compliance with this direction. The felling of trees is to be suspended except in the situations where State Government has taken a call, as approved by the central government. Also, in absence of any working plan in a state, the felling under the permits can be carried out solely by the Forest Department of the State Govt. or the State Forest Corporation.

The court implemented an institutional mechanism that would manage the funds regarding ‘compensatory afforestation.((‘Compensatory Afforestation and Net Present Value Payments for Diversion of Forest Land in India’, Kalpavriksh. <https://kalpavriksh.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/KV_CAMPA_Revised_Final.pdf>)) If forest land under Forest Conservation Act jurisdiction is rerouted to any non-forestry purpose, the compensatory afforestation would be in action.

The Indian Railways and the State Governments have been given the responsibility to take measures required to ensure stringent compliance of cutting down trees and timber from any of the seven North-Eastern States to any other state of the country either by rail, road, or waterways. This prohibition will exclude government projects and the movement of certified timber necessary for defence. The ban will not be applied to felling in private plantations containing trees planted in an area that is not considered a forest. SC directed various guidelines and constituted expert committees to formulate practical methodologies to protect and preserve forest land. The court also referred many cases to arrive at the decision.

The meaning of the word ‘forest’ here should not be taken in a dictionary sense. Because the term ‘forest land’ mentioned under Section 2 of the Act not only includes the sole meaning of forest but the land recorded in the Government record irrespective of ownership. This aspect elucidates the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act.((Indian Forest Act 1980.))

Each State Government was directed to constitute Expert Committee to identify areas that are ‘forest’ under the purview of the Section 2, to identify areas that were previously forests but stand degraded or cleared, and to identify areas covered by tree plantations belonging to Government or to a private entity. The State Government also needs to file a report regarding the number of sawmills, veneer and plywood mills, etc. are operating.

There are also guidelines and directions for the protection and conservation of forest lands given separately to the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

ANALYSIS

Forest is the heart of any country. It is the source of human life. It is known as the green wealth of one’s nation. The complete ecosystem is reliant on forests. Forest is a significant aspect of natural habitat. Humans know the importance of this subject but they do not understand its necessity. Mr. T.N Godavarman played a significant role in the process of protecting these amazing forests of Nilgiri. If the forests are not protected then the condition of a country will be adverse. Forests are known as Earth’s greatest natural resources. They were found abundantly earlier. However, forests are decreasing gradually. Owing to illegal activities, the stooping of trees, cutting, and felling of trees, etc. have lessened the counting of trees. Illegal activities within forests which are increasing at an alarming rate, etc. have rendered the soul of the forest weak. Thus, to enforce regulation on all these activities, the Forest Conservation Act of 1980 had been enacted.

The major objective behind enacting the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980, later amended in 1988, is to keep an eye on the drastically increasing deforestation which resulted in ecological imbalances and environmental degradation.((‘Forest Conservation’, International Centre for Environment Audit and Sustainable Development. <http://iced.cag.gov.in/?page_id=1061#:~:text=The%20main%20objective%20of%20the,to%20the%20forest%20dwelling%20communities.>)) Thus, the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act must be applied to all forests regardless of classification or ownership. In the pre-independence period, the first-ever statute made was the Indian Forest Act of 1865. Its main was to regulate the timber cutting as well as smuggling of raw materials sooner than safeguarding forests.

After independence, an ordinance was passed in 1980 and the Forest Conservation Act was enforced. The constraint had been rendered on the use of forests for non-forest purposes.

While delivering judgment, the court reviewed the National Forest Policy and the Forest Conservation Act 1980 to consider all the aspects of deforestation. Section. 2 of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 regulates the State Government and other authorities on rendering laws without the prior approval of the Central Government. State Governments or any other authority shall not de-reserve any forest land or any other portion. Any forest land or portion shall not be utilized for non-forest purposes. Any forest land or portion shall not assign by the method of the lease to a private body or authority, non-government agency, organization, etc. Any forest land or portion of it shall not be cleared off for afforestation.

In this Supreme Court Judgement, the meaning of the word ‘forest’ was not restricted to its dictionary sense only. It was held that meaning should cover not only the green trees but also the complete forest area recorded under the Government record. Whenever the guidelines will be created or any judgment will be passed the term forest land should be interpreted as the area recorded. There should be not any uncertainty in interpreting this expression in the future.

When Nilgiri forests were in atrocious condition, inhabitants living near forests were facing a lot of problems that were violating their fundamental rights. The people living there were being deprived of living in a clean environment. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states the right to live in a clean pollution-free environment and this fundamental right was being violated. Forests were the major source of livelihood for those inhabitants, living around the forests. Not only the humans but also the fauna was dependent on the rainforests. Flora and fauna contained in the forest enhance the standard of life which is always loved by mankind. Protection and preservation of forests are of utmost necessity to live a peaceful life. We must conserve mother nature and present it to future generations in the purest form.

Mining carried out on large scale was also a big threat to forest land. Supreme court issued various guidelines for regulating mining. One of the instances was about granting the permission to National Mineral Development Corporation to carry out mining in the state of Madhya Pradesh. An order has been passed regarding mining that certain conditions have to be followed after receiving permission from the Central Government laid down in the case of T.N Godavarman v. UOI. The order was passed in 1999 permitting NMDC to carry out mining only after receiving permission from Central Government.((India’s Forests and the Judiciary, ‘The Godavarman Story’, World Wild Fund. <http://awsassets.wwfindia.org/downloads/indias_forests_and_the_judiciary_2.pdf>)) The court administered the Minister of Environment and Forest to register an exhaustive proposal for “compensatory afforestation” to be established. The compensatory afforestation proved as a new mantra for all the non-forestry wicked activities.

The Supreme Court adopted the obligations of the administrator, lawmaker, and policymaker by leaving behind the standard role of an interpreter of law. This is due to not following as well as not fulfilling the duties and functions of the State governments. Judiciary intervenes and encroaches in the matters of Legislation and Executive whenever it is highly required. In this case, Judiciary intervention can be observed through the steps taken such as the prohibition on felling and cutting of trees, regulating timber industries and sawmills, etc. The imposition of a tax called a present value for using forest land for non-forestry purposes, setting up the Compensatory Afforestation Fund (CAMPA), and money received in the fund should be utilized hence required prior approval given by the Supreme Court for carrying out a business activity, all these are remarkable steps taken by the court.

CONCLUSION

People now are more inclined toward luxury items and hence they are forgetting the real happiness that lies in natural resources. Natural resources are modified, changed, and transformed to render into luxury. Thus, the state of nature is degrading. Cutting and felling trees and other various illegal activities ultimately violate the purpose of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The development of mankind is significant nevertheless, it must be without harming the rich biodiversity bestowed by the nature.

The court has taken this issue very seriously note and it can be observed through guidelines issued, the setting up of various committees, and the conferring of additional powers on the ministry. Court’s intervention was necessary to bring an end to the ill-planned developmental projects which were ceasing the nation to achieve bigger developmental goals. Because of the intervention rendered by the court, it ceased mining in the forest of Kudremukh and brought a complete prohibition on marble mining in Aravalis.((P.K. Manohar and Praveen Bhargava, “The Architect of an omnibus forest protection case”, Opinion, The Hindu, July 05, 2016. <https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/open-page/The-architect-of-an-omnibus-forest-protection-case/article14470903.ece>))

Commendable decisions were taken by the court on net present value, compensatory afforestation, and obtaining prior approval from the Supreme court to carry out any commercial activities, etc impacted society on a large scale. The author can come up with a suggestion that only afforestation won’t suffice the need of the hour, but an implementive check and balance to be ensured by appointment of specific office.

Greenman’s endeavors to cease deforestation and save the lives of people led to watershed legal intervention which boosted the conservation of forests.