FOREST LAW

THE FOREST (CONSERVATION) AMENDMENT BILL, 2023: A STEP TOWARDS

DEVELOPMENT OR A THREAT TO ECOLOGICAL SECURITY?

SUBMITTED BY- SUBMITTED TO-

NAME: KUMAR DHARMYOGI MR. MRITYUNJAY MAYANK

& DR. RAM CHANDRA ORAON

SEMESTER: VIII FOREST LAW

SECTION: B

ROLL NO: 1293

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN

LAW, RANCHI
 Table of Contents
Declaration ...................................................................................................................................... 4

Certificate ........................................................................................................................................ 5

Acknowledgment ............................................................................................................................ 6

List of Abbreviations....................................................................................................................... 7

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Research Questions ......................................................................................................................... 9

Research Methodology ................................................................................................................... 9

Evolution of Forest Conservation Law in India ............................................................................ 10

Overview of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 ....................................................11

Critical Legal Analysis of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 .............................. 12

1. Comparison with the Original Act: Scope and Coverage ..................................................... 12

2. Constitutional Dimensions .................................................................................................... 13

a. Article 21: Right to Life and a Clean Environment .......................................................... 13

b. Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties................................................................... 14

3. Conflict with Existing Environmental Laws and Tribal Rights ............................................ 14

a. Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) ......................................................................................... 14

b. Biological Diversity Act, 2002 ......................................................................................... 14

4. Potential Loopholes and Ambiguities ................................................................................... 15

Stakeholder Perspectives .............................................................................................................. 15

1. Forest and Tribal Communities............................................................................................. 15

2. Environmentalists and Legal Scholars .................................................................................. 16

3. Industry and Infrastructure Proponents ................................................................................. 16

4. Observations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee ...................................................... 17

Page | 2
Comparative View: Forest Clearance and Conservation in Global Context ................................. 18

1. Brazil: Constitutional Recognition but Weak Enforcement .................................................. 18

2. Indonesia: Moratorium and Peatland Protection................................................................... 18

3. Canada: Decentralization and Indigenous Rights ................................................................. 19

Conclusion and Suggestions ......................................................................................................... 20

Suggestions ................................................................................................................................... 21

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................. 23

Page | 3
 Declaration
I hereby declare that this research paper titled “The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill,
2023: A Step Towards Development or a Threat to Ecological Security?” is a record of
original work carried out by me as part of the academic requirements of the subject Forest Law.

This research paper has not been submitted previously for any other examination or academic
evaluation and does not contain any material copied from other sources except where due
acknowledgment has been made.

Date: 9/5/2025
Name: Kumar Dharmyogi
Roll Number: 1293
Institution: National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi

Page | 4
 Certificate
This is to certify that the research paper titled “The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill,
2023: A Step Towards Development or a Threat to Ecological Security?” submitted by Kumar
Dharmyogi, Roll Number 1293, is an original and bonafide work carried out under my supervision
as part of the academic curriculum for the subject Forest Law.

The work embodies the student's own ideas and analysis to the best of my knowledge, and any
assistance or references used have been properly acknowledged.

Page | 5
 Acknowledgment
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my subject professor, Mr. Mrityunjay Mayank
and Dr. Ram Chandra Oraon, for their invaluable guidance, feedback, and encouragement
throughout the course of this research. Their insights into environmental and forest law provided
a strong foundation for this study.

I acknowledge the contributions of various scholars, institutions, and publications whose work has
informed and inspired my research.

Name- Kumar Dharmyogi

Date – 9/5/2025

Page | 6
 List of Abbreviations

Abbreviation Full Form

FCA Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980

FRA Forest Rights Act, 2006

MoEF&CC Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

SIA Social Impact Assessment

FPIC Free, Prior, and Informed Consent

SCC Supreme Court Cases

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

ZoI Zone of Influence

CII Confederation of Indian Industry

SC Supreme Court

GoI Government of India

Page | 7
 Introduction
Forests have always played a crucial role in maintaining ecological balance, supporting
biodiversity, and sustaining the livelihoods of millions of forest-dependent communities in India.
Recognizing their environmental significance and the alarming rate of deforestation in the post-
independence era, the Indian Parliament enacted the FCA. This landmark legislation aimed to
centralize decision-making on forest land diversion and prevent rampant deforestation by requiring
prior approval of the Central Government for any non-forest use of forest land. For over four
decades, this Act has stood as a key legal safeguard against the exploitation of forests for
commercial and industrial purposes.

In 2023, however, the landscape of forest governance in India saw a significant shift with the
introduction of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023. The Bill proposes major changes
to the original Act, including expanding exemptions for certain categories of land from its ambit,
particularly those near border areas or intended for strategic, security, or infrastructure purposes.
The government has argued that these amendments are necessary to meet developmental goals,
facilitate infrastructure growth, and enhance national security, especially in sensitive regions.

However, the proposed changes have sparked a robust national debate. Critics argue that the
amendments risk diluting the original intent of the 1980 Act and could open the door for large-
scale forest degradation. The tension between economic development and environmental
conservation lies at the heart of this controversy. On one side are the imperatives of national
growth, security, and modernization; on the other are the equally vital concerns of environmental
protection, climate resilience, and the rights of indigenous and forest-dwelling communities.

This research paper seeks to explore this complex and timely issue. By critically analyzing the
provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, in the context of India’s
constitutional and environmental commitments, the paper aims to assess whether the amendments
represent a progressive reform or a regressive shift that undermines the ecological and social
foundations of forest law in India.

Page | 8
 Research Questions
This study is guided by the following key questions:

1. What are the significant changes introduced by the Forest (Conservation)

Amendment Bill, 2023, and how do they depart from or build upon the original FCA?

2. To what extent are the proposed amendments consistent with the constitutional
framework governing environmental protection, including the right to life under Article
21, the Directive Principles of State Policy, and the Fundamental Duties?

3. What are the potential implications of the amendments on forest-dependent

communities and biodiversity, particularly in relation to existing legal safeguards such as
the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006?

Research Methodology
The research adopts a doctrinal legal methodology, primarily relying on qualitative analysis of
statutory texts, legislative proposals, and constitutional provisions. The study involves:

• A detailed comparative examination of the FCA and the proposed Forest (Conservation)
Amendment Bill, 2023.

• Interpretive analysis of relevant provisions of the Indian Constitution, including judicial

precedents relating to environmental law, forest governance, and fundamental rights.

• Review of Parliamentary Standing Committee reports, expert commentaries, policy

briefs, and critiques published by legal scholars, environmental organisations, and think
tanks.

• Case law analysis to understand how the judiciary has historically interpreted forest and
environmental protection in India, especially in balancing development with ecological
preservation.

This doctrinal approach aims to offer a comprehensive and critical understanding of the legal,
constitutional, and socio-environmental dimensions of the 2023 Amendment Bill.

Page | 9
 Evolution of Forest Conservation Law in India
The trajectory of forest conservation law in India reflects the country's shifting priorities—from a
colonial past focused on resource extraction to a constitutional democracy striving for ecological
sustainability and social justice. Forests in India have long served as a source of livelihood, culture,
and identity for tribal and forest-dwelling communities. Yet, their legal regulation has historically
leaned more toward state control than community stewardship.

The FCA marked a turning point in this landscape. Enacted against the backdrop of accelerating
deforestation and environmental degradation, the Act centralized the power to divert forest land
for non-forest purposes, requiring prior approval from the Central Government. Its core objective
was to place a regulatory check on indiscriminate forest clearance by state authorities for industrial,
mining, or developmental projects. This central oversight aimed to harmonize development needs
with ecological responsibility.

Over time, judicial interventions have significantly shaped the interpretation and implementation
of forest conservation law. The most notable among these is the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad
v. Union of India1 series of cases, where the Supreme Court expanded the definition of "forest"
to include not just notified areas but also those that met the dictionary meaning of the term. These
rulings ushered in the concept of the “continuing mandamus,” resulting in ongoing judicial
oversight over forest-related matters. Through these and other judgments, the judiciary has
emerged as a crucial guardian of India’s environmental jurisprudence.

Simultaneously, various policy milestones have attempted to address the rights of indigenous
communities and the need for participatory forest governance. The Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, commonly known as the
Forest Rights Act (FRA), sought to undo historical injustices by recognizing the customary rights
of forest communities over land and resources.

Another area of tension has been the division of powers between the Centre and the States.
While land and forest are subjects in the Concurrent List under the Constitution, the 1980 Act
shifted considerable authority to the Central Government. This has often created friction, as states

1
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267

Page | 10
argue for more autonomy in managing their forest resources, especially in the context of local
developmental needs.

Thus, the evolution of forest conservation law in India has been a story of balancing competing
imperatives—environmental protection, federalism, and the rights of forest-dependent
communities. The introduction of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, must be
viewed against this backdrop, as it signals a potential reconfiguration of this delicate balance.

Overview of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 represents a significant legislative shift in
India’s forest governance regime. Introduced in the Lok Sabha in March 2023 and passed in August
2023, the Bill seeks to amend the FCA, a law that has long served as a legal bulwark against the
diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. While the original Act was designed to impose
strong regulatory checks on deforestation and required prior approval from the central government
for any such diversion, the 2023 amendments appear to pivot the law more toward facilitating
infrastructure and strategic development.

One of the most notable provisions of the amendment is the redefinition of the term "forest",
which limits the scope of the Act to only those lands that were either notified as forest under any
law or were recorded as forest in government records on or after October 25, 1980. This change
effectively excludes vast areas of land traditionally understood as forests—particularly those not
formally recorded—as falling outside the regulatory protection of the Act. This reinterpretation
could have serious implications for ecologically sensitive regions and forest-dependent
communities.2

The amendment also introduces new categories of exemptions from the Act’s purview. For
example, forest land situated within 100 kilometers of India’s international borders, or areas
critical for national security, defense infrastructure, road and railway construction, and
strategic projects are proposed to be exempt from the requirement of central clearance. These
exemptions, while framed in the language of national interest, have raised concerns among

2
PRS Legislative Research. (2023). The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 - Bill Summary.

Page | 11
environmentalists and tribal rights activists about the potential for misuse, especially in
ecologically fragile border states like Arunachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Jammu & Kashmir.3

Another important concept introduced is the “Zone of Influence (ZoI)”, although the Bill does
not clearly define this term. It appears to refer to areas surrounding critical infrastructure projects
where regulatory relaxations could apply. The ambiguity surrounding this term has led to
apprehensions about its potential to override environmental norms in large landscapes beyond the
project footprint.

The government’s rationale behind the amendment is rooted in the need to expedite national
infrastructure and security projects, especially in border areas where cumbersome clearance
processes are often cited as a bottleneck. According to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and
Climate Change (MoEF&CC), the amendments are also intended to provide “clarity” on the
applicability of the Act and to promote “ease of doing business” in the forestry and infrastructure
sectors.

While the government has emphasized the need to modernize the law in line with current
developmental priorities, the Bill has triggered widespread debate. Critics argue that the focus on
development and security should not come at the cost of ecological integrity and the rights
of forest-dwelling communities. With India having committed to global climate goals and
biodiversity protection under international treaties like the Paris Agreement and the Convention
on Biological Diversity, the direction of this amendment raises important legal and ethical
questions about the future of forest conservation in the country. 4

Critical Legal Analysis of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023

1. Comparison with the Original Act: Scope and Coverage
The original FCA was enacted in response to growing deforestation and aimed to centralize
decision-making on the diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. Its strength lay in its
broad applicability—any land recorded as forest, regardless of ownership or notification status,
required prior approval of the Central Government before being diverted.

3
Press Information Bureau. (2023, August 1). Lok Sabha passes the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill 2023.
4
Press Information Bureau. (2023). Workshop on Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023 and Carbon
Sequestration.

Page | 12
In contrast, the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 narrows this scope significantly. It
limits the applicability of the Act to land:

• Notified as forest under any law, or

• Recorded as forest in government records on or after 25 October 1980.

This revision excludes vast areas traditionally managed or inhabited by forest communities,
especially those that fall outside formal forest records but are ecologically significant. This shift is
a departure from the expansive definition of "forest" laid down by the Supreme Court in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India5, which brought all land satisfying the “dictionary
meaning of forest” under legal protection, regardless of official notification.

This rollback potentially removes protections from millions of hectares of forest-like areas,
undermining both conservation objectives and customary rights.

2. Constitutional Dimensions
a. Article 21: Right to Life and a Clean Environment

Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, which has been judicially interpreted to
include the right to a wholesome and clean environment. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar 6,
the Supreme Court recognized environmental quality as intrinsic to Article 21. Similarly, in M.C.
Mehta v. Union of India7, the Court emphasized the State’s duty to ensure environmental
protection in the public interest.

By enabling large-scale exemptions for forest diversion—particularly for infrastructure, security,

and border-area projects—the 2023 Amendment could be seen as compromising this
constitutionally protected environmental right. The absence of ecological impact safeguards in
these exemptions could amount to a violation of Article 21.

5
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267
6
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar [(1991) 1 SCC 598]
7
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India [(1987) 4 SCC 463]

Page | 13
b. Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties

The Amendment must also be assessed in light of Article 48A, which directs the State to protect
and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife, and Article 51A(g), which makes
it a fundamental duty of citizens to protect the environment.

Although these provisions are non-justiciable, they have often been invoked by courts to interpret
environmental legislation in harmony with the Constitution. The 2023 Bill’s orientation toward
easing forest diversion rather than reinforcing conservation obligations seems misaligned with
these constitutional ideals.

3. Conflict with Existing Environmental Laws and Tribal Rights

a. Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA)

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006 acknowledges the historical injustices faced by forest-dwelling communities by
recognizing their customary rights over land and forest produce. Section 5 of the FRA empowers
Gram Sabhas to protect and manage forests, and mandates their consent for any project involving
diversion of forest land.

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, by granting blanket exemptions in border
areas and other specified zones, could circumvent the consent requirement of Gram Sabhas,
thereby eroding community governance over forest resources. This poses a potential conflict
with both the spirit and provisions of the FRA.

b. Biological Diversity Act, 2002

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 mandates conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity,
with an emphasis on community participation and benefit sharing. Unregulated or fast-tracked
diversion of forest land under the amended Act could lead to loss of habitat and biodiversity,
without sufficient impact assessment or community consultation—directly undermining the
objectives of the Biodiversity Act.

Page | 14
Moreover, the requirement for prior Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) under other
environmental laws could become redundant in zones exempted from forest clearance, creating
legal and procedural loopholes in environmental governance.

4. Potential Loopholes and Ambiguities

Several provisions of the Amendment Bill suffer from legal vagueness that could enable arbitrary
interpretation:

• The term “Zone of Influence (ZoI)” remains undefined in the Bill, yet could be used to
justify large-scale relaxations in areas adjoining strategic projects.

• The exemption of forest land within 100 km of international borders lacks clarity on
ecological thresholds or safeguards, despite the fact that many of India’s biodiversity
hotspots fall in these regions.

• Absence of a mandatory public consultation process for exempted projects could lead
to violations of both environmental justice and procedural fairness.

These ambiguities undermine legal certainty, and unless clarified through rules or judicial
scrutiny, may dilute environmental protections that were hard-won through decades of legislation
and jurisprudence.

Stakeholder Perspectives

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, has generated wide-ranging responses from
different stakeholders across the country. While the government has emphasized the
developmental and strategic rationale behind the amendments, several civil society groups, legal
experts, and tribal organizations have raised concerns about its environmental and social
implications. A balanced analysis of these perspectives is essential to understand the broader
ramifications of the legislation.

1. Forest and Tribal Communities

Forest-dwelling and tribal communities, who are often the first custodians of forests, view the
2023 Amendment as a direct threat to their rights and cultural survival. The FRA was enacted
precisely to recognize their historical relationship with forests and correct the “historic injustice”

Page | 15
meted out to them. The Amendment, by excluding certain forest lands from the purview of
forest conservation laws—especially those not recorded in official records after 1980—risks
dispossessing tribal communities from their customary lands without due process.

Organizations such as the Adivasi Janajati Adhikar Manch (AJAM) and the Campaign for
Survival and Dignity have argued that the Amendment facilitates land diversion without the
Gram Sabha consent mandated under FRA, thereby eroding democratic forest governance.
Their concern is that the exemptions for border areas and strategic infrastructure projects will
accelerate forest clearances in regions heavily populated by indigenous groups.8

2. Environmentalists and Legal Scholars

Environmentalists and legal scholars have largely criticized the Bill for diluting ecological
safeguards and undermining judicially established principles of environmental law. The
Godavarman case [(1997) 2 SCC 267] had previously broadened the definition of forests to
include areas meeting the dictionary meaning of the term, regardless of official notification. The
Amendment's move to restrict the legal definition to post-1980 notified or recorded forests is
viewed as regressive and legally suspect.

Legal scholars have also pointed out that the Amendment is inconsistent with the precautionary
principle and the public trust doctrine, both of which are cornerstones of Indian environmental
jurisprudence as articulated in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath [(1997) 1 SCC 388]. According to Prof.
Kanchi Kohli and Manju Menon (Centre for Policy Research), the proposed law opens the door
for unchecked commercialisation of forest landscapes without adequate scrutiny or participatory
processes.9

3. Industry and Infrastructure Proponents

On the other side of the spectrum, industry bodies and infrastructure advocates have welcomed
the Amendment as a much-needed step toward reducing bureaucratic delays in project approvals.
According to the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) and similar stakeholders, the forest

8
Adivasi Janajati Adhikar Manch (AJAM), Statement on Forest Conservation Amendment Bill, 2023
9
Kohli, K. & Menon, M. (2023). Deconstructing the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, Centre for Policy
Research, New Delhi.

Page | 16
clearance process has historically been a significant bottleneck for linear projects such as railways,
roads, and defense installations, especially in sensitive border regions.10

Proponents argue that the Amendment strikes a balance between conservation and
development, particularly by facilitating strategic and security-related infrastructure essential for
national defense. In this view, the fast-tracking of clearances is not an abandonment of
environmental norms but a pragmatic adjustment to ground realities in underdeveloped or
strategically critical areas.

4. Observations of the Parliamentary Standing Committee

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment, Forests

and Climate Change, chaired by Jairam Ramesh, reviewed the Bill and expressed serious
concerns about its implications. In its Report dated July 2023, the Committee noted that the
Amendment may weaken environmental protection and overlook community participation,
especially in tribal-dominated and ecologically fragile areas.11

The Committee recommended that:

• The definition of "forest" must not override the Supreme Court’s interpretation in the
Godavarman case.
• Mandatory public consultation should be instituted for any exemptions granted under
the Act.
• The rights granted under FRA must be respected and safeguarded in all decisions
regarding forest diversion.

These recommendations reflect a cautious and rights-based approach, aiming to balance

development needs with constitutional and ecological responsibilities.

10
Confederation of Indian Industry (CII), Industry Note on Ease of Forest Clearance and Strategic Infrastructure,
2023.
11
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment, Forests and Climate Change. (2023).
Report on the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023. Rajya Sabha Secretariat.

Page | 17
 Comparative View: Forest Clearance and Conservation in Global Context

As India attempts to reform its forest governance through the Forest (Conservation) Amendment
Bill, 2023, it is instructive to examine how other forest-rich countries balance developmental
imperatives with ecological conservation. Nations like Brazil, Indonesia, and Canada have
grappled with similar tensions between economic growth and forest protection. A comparative
legal and policy perspective offers valuable insights into best practices and cautionary lessons.

1. Brazil: Constitutional Recognition but Weak Enforcement

Brazil houses the world’s largest tropical rainforest—the Amazon—and its forest policy is guided
by the Forest Code of 1965, amended significantly in 2012. The law mandates that a portion of
private land (up to 80% in Amazonia) must be maintained as Legal Reserve (Reserva Legal) and
Permanent Preservation Areas (APPs) must remain forested.

However, despite having robust legislation and constitutional protection (Article 225 of Brazil’s
Constitution recognizes the right to an ecologically balanced environment), enforcement remains
a major challenge. Political and economic pressures, particularly from agribusiness, have led to
massive deforestation through regulatory rollbacks and weakening of environmental
agencies like IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources).

Lesson for India: Mere legal safeguards are insufficient unless backed by strong institutional
enforcement, community engagement, and political will.12

2. Indonesia: Moratorium and Peatland Protection

Indonesia has suffered one of the world’s highest deforestation rates due to palm oil plantations,
logging, and mining. However, in 2011, it enacted a nationwide moratorium on new licenses for
logging in primary forests and peatlands, which was made permanent in 2019 by Presidential
Instruction No. 5/2019.

12
Brazilian Forest Code, Law No. 12.651/2012; Constitution of Brazil, Article 225; Human Rights Watch (2019),
Rainforest Mafias: How Violence and Impunity Fuel Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon

Page | 18
Indonesia’s system relies on a central permit regime under its Ministry of Environment and
Forestry (KLHK) and mandates Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEAs) for spatial
planning. Additionally, Indonesia has experimented with community forestry (Hutan
Kemasyarakatan) that grants long-term rights to local communities to manage forests
sustainably.

Lesson for India: Strong zoning laws, moratoriums in ecologically sensitive areas, and
community-based forest management models can contribute to both conservation and
livelihood security.13

3. Canada: Decentralization and Indigenous Rights

Canada manages vast boreal forests under a federal-provincial framework, with most forest
lands under provincial jurisdiction. The country employs Sustainable Forest Management
(SFM) practices, guided by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers (CCFM). Forest
clearances in Canada are subject to:

• Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA)

• Public consultation
• Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for Indigenous communities under Section
35 of the Canadian Constitution

Notably, Canada’s approach places a strong legal emphasis on Indigenous participation,

recognizing land rights and enforcing legal obligations through treaties and court rulings (e.g.,
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010).

Lesson for India: Incorporating Indigenous consent into forest governance frameworks enhances
legal legitimacy, democratic accountability, and sustainability outcomes.14

Best Practices in Balancing Development and Conservation

13
Indonesia’s Presidential Instruction No. 5/2019; Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), Community
Forestry Program Guidelines
14
Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010; Government of Canada, Sustainable Forest Management
Framework, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers

Page | 19
From these global examples, certain best practices emerge that India can consider integrating into
its forest policy architecture:

• Legal certainty through clear definitions and mapping of forest areas (Indonesia,
Canada)
• Mandatory, science-based environmental assessments before clearance (Brazil,
Canada)
• Inclusion of Indigenous and local communities through legal recognition of rights and
participation (Canada, Indonesia)
• Institutional independence and capacity of environmental authorities to resist political
or economic interference (Brazil’s challenge)
• Strategic zoning and moratoriums in high-biodiversity regions (Indonesia)

These practices demonstrate that development and conservation need not be mutually
exclusive, provided that forest governance is rooted in transparency, community rights, and
ecological responsibility.

Conclusion and Suggestions

The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023 marks a critical juncture in India’s forest
governance framework. While the government’s stated intent of streamlining forest clearances for
national security and infrastructure development is not without merit, the legal, ecological, and
social implications of the amendment raise serious concerns. By narrowing the definition of
“forest,” introducing wide-ranging exemptions, and diluting the role of forest-dwelling
communities in governance, the amendment appears to depart from the core conservation ethos
of the original 1980 Act, as well as the progressive rights-based approach of subsequent
legislation like the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

The constitutional framework—particularly Article 21, Article 48A, and Article 51A(g)—
mandates a balanced approach that promotes both development and ecological integrity. However,
the absence of clear definitions, oversight mechanisms, and participatory procedures in the
Amendment Bill risks violating the right to a clean and healthy environment, undermining
tribal autonomy, and weakening public trust in environmental law.

Page | 20
Comparative insights from Brazil, Indonesia, and Canada show that successful forest
governance models require not just legal reform, but institutional robustness, community
engagement, and a science-based approach to environmental management. India must integrate
these lessons into its legislative and policy framework if it aims to meet its constitutional
obligations and global climate commitments.

Suggestions

Based on the critical analysis presented, the following recommendations are proposed to ensure
that the objectives of the Amendment Bill are met without compromising ecological and social
justice:

1. Restore the Inclusive Definition of “Forest”

Reinstate the broad, functional interpretation of forests as upheld in T.N. Godavarman

Thirumulpad v. Union of India15, ensuring that ecologically valuable areas not officially notified
are still protected.

2. Mandate Environmental and Social Impact Assessments

All projects, including those in exempted zones (e.g., border areas), should be subject to
mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Social Impact Assessments (SIA)
to prevent ecological and community harm.

3. Ensure Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)

Recognize the Gram Sabha’s role under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and mandate FPIC from
forest-dwelling communities before any diversion of land, especially in Scheduled Areas under
the Fifth Schedule.

4. Introduce Legal Definitions and Limitations on Exemptions

15
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India [(1997) 2 SCC 267]

Page | 21
Ambiguous terms like “Zone of Influence” should be clearly defined. Exemptions for strategic and
infrastructure projects must be narrowly tailored, time-bound, and subject to independent
oversight.

5. Establish Independent Review Mechanisms

An independent forest clearance tribunal or body, comprising legal, ecological, and tribal
representation, should review contentious forest diversion decisions to ensure fairness and
accountability.

6. Integrate Climate and Biodiversity Goals

Amend the Bill to align with India's National Forest Policy, 1988, Biodiversity Act, 2002, and
climate commitments under the Paris Agreement, ensuring that forest use decisions consider
long-term carbon sequestration and ecological health.

7. Strengthen Parliamentary Oversight

All exemptions and clearance decisions under the amended Act should be subject to reporting to
Parliament, ensuring transparency, legislative accountability, and checks on executive
overreach.

In sum, the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023, presents both opportunity and risk.
With appropriate legal safeguards, meaningful community involvement, and a transparent
governance framework, India can pursue development without dismantling the ecological and
constitutional pillars upon which its forest laws are built.

Page | 22
 Bibliography
1. The FCA, No. 69 of 1980. Government of India.
2. Constitution of India, Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India.
3. Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)
Act, 2006, No. 2 of 2007.
4. Biological Diversity Act, 2002, No. 18 of 2003.
5. T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, (1997) 2 SCC 267.
6. Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, (1991) 1 SCC 598.
7. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 463.
8. Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. (2023). Press Note on Forest
(Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023.
9. Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science & Technology, Environment, Forests and
Climate Change. (2023). Report on the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Bill, 2023.
Rajya Sabha Secretariat.
10. National Forest Policy, 1988, Ministry of Environment and Forests, available at
https://envfor.nic.in/sites/default/files/nfp_1988.pdf\
11. Brazilian Forest Code, Law No. 12.651/2012; Constitution of Brazil, Article 225; Human
Rights Watch (2019), Rainforest Mafias: How Violence and Impunity Fuel Deforestation
in Brazil’s Amazon, available at: https://www.hrw.org
12. Indonesia’s Presidential Instruction No. 5/2019; Ministry of Environment and Forestry
(KLHK), Community Forestry Program Guidelines, available at:
https://www.menlhk.go.id
13. Delgamuukw v. British Columbia, [1997] 3 SCR 1010; Government of Canada,
Sustainable Forest Management Framework, Canadian Council of Forest Ministers,
available at: https://www.ccfm.org

Page | 23