GURUGRAM: Following the Supreme Court’s directive for all states and Union territories to define “forest” and identify such areas, Haryana has yet to conduct any surveys. This comes despite the establishment of expert committees by the state government in April.
The issue — district and state-level committees are unable to commence their tasks until the state finalizes its definition of “forest” based on dictionary meaning, stalling the entire process.
In April, the Haryana government appointed a state-level expert committee led by the additional chief secretary (environment, forests & wildlife), including senior officials from various related departments.
District-level committees, chaired by deputy commissioners and comprising municipal commissioners, divisional forest officers, and other officials, were also formed. However, these committees have been given a timeline of one to two months to conduct surveys and submit their findings—contingent on the state’s provision of a forest definition.
On March 4, the Supreme Court instructed all states and UTs to define “forest” and map these areas, including the Aravalis. This move is crucial for facilitating protections under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA) and for preserving green cover in ecologically sensitive zones.
When inquired about the delay, Haryana’s principal chief conservator of forests, Vineet Kumar Garg, stated on Wednesday, “We have submitted the forest definition for the state government’s finalization. We will initiate the process once it is finalized.”
Experts and activists contended that successive Haryana governments have evaded protections for the Aravalis under the FCA, hampering the process. “This is a deliberate noncompliance with the Supreme Court’s Godavarman verdict. Forming committees without providing a definition is a strategy to ensure no real progress is made. Haryana is attempting to cede its remaining forests to private builders by not recognizing them as forest,” claimed RP Balwan, a retired conservator of forests in Haryana (South).
The Supreme Court’s order came during the hearing of writ petitions challenging amendments to the Forest (Conservation) Act. Citing the 2011 Lafarge ruling, it directed states/UTs to establish expert committees within a month, holding state chief secretaries personally accountable for any failures.
The Lafarge ruling, connected to environmental approvals for mining in Meghalaya, mandated all states to identify and map forest land. This builds upon the landmark 1996 TN Godavarman case, which established the requirement to protect any area that exhibits forest characteristics under the FCA, regardless of its designation in official records. This notion of “deemed forest” expanded the FCA’s applicability. Nevertheless, previous Haryana administrations have claimed the absence of a clear definition or criteria for identifying forests.
Forest analyst Chetan Agarwal underscored the administrative stalemate, stating, “The government has created a Catch-22 situation. They formed committees in April to comply with the March court ruling but constrained them by stating that a forest definition will be provided by the state government, which still hasn’t occurred.” The case is set for review by the Supreme Court on September 9, where the Haryana government may need to justify its lack of a definition for ‘forest.’
