Latest news with #Godavarman
New Indian Express
07-07-2025
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Experts filed petition express concern of loss of natural forest due to flawed compensatory afforestation
Former bureaucrats and forest officials have filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court seeking intervention against the government's unlawful implementation of the Compensatory Afforestation Scheme (CAS) on designated forest land. Under CAS, if forest land is diverted for non-forestry purposes, an equal area of non-forest land should be afforested to compensate for the loss. However, the petition stresses that the government's current implementation of CAS violates a Supreme Court order dated 3 February 2025. In its interim order, the Supreme Court restrained the Centre and State governments from cutting down forest areas without providing compensatory land. 'There have been multiple instances of compensatory afforestation being permitted on degraded notified forests, Revenue forests, and other unclassed forests that are statutorily protected, as per this Hon'ble Court's directions in the Godavarman order of 12 December 1996. The order dated 3 February 2025 also prohibits such diversions,' the petition states.
Time of India
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
'Conflict of interest' in CEC may compromise FCAA cases: Retired bureaucrats write to CJI
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel A group of 60 former civil servants has written to the Chief Justice of India, claiming that a "conflict of interest" in the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) could compromise the outcome of cases challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act, their open letter dated June 30, the signatories, including former secretaries, ambassadors, police chiefs and forest officers, said the four-member CEC currently includes three former Indian Forest Service officers and a retired scientist who also worked with the environment ministry for many years. There are no independent experts on the letter said two CEC members recently retired as Director General of Forests and Special Secretary in the environment ministry."A CEC comprising officers who had held the highest positions in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and were closely involved in policy-making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court , advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government," the letter retired civil servants, part of the Constitutional Conduct Group, said the CEC, formed in 2002, had a balanced composition until earlier CEC included not only government experts but also two independent members -- a wildlife specialist and a Supreme Court advocate -- who had neither held senior government positions nor been involved in forest policy decisions, "thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest", they 2023, a group of individuals challenged the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) in the Supreme Court, saying that it would hasten forest decline. In this matter, the court has issued four orders, including one upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996. The case is pending final retired officials pointed out that a current CEC member, while serving in the environment ministry, had "prepared and defended" the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill before the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Act, its rules and guidelines were all notified during that said several memos allowing use of degraded, notified and revenue forests for compensatory afforestation, which goes against the 1996 Godavarman judgment, were also issued during the tenure of some present CEC signatories feared that the outcome of the cases against the FCAA 2023, "may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC", as the Supreme Court might rely on the CEC's advice before making its final advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, in cases that challenge the FCAA 2023, "will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed and will thus represent a clear conflict of interest", the letter retired officials said this concern is already reflected in the recent Supreme Court order on Maharashtra's 'zudpi' forests (scrub forests).The court's order dated May 22, 2025, relied heavily on the CEC's advice, which recommended the untrammelled use of these forests for "compensatory afforestation", considering them ecologically inferior as they cannot support dense forest former bureaucrats urged the court to ensure that the CEC includes not just retired government officials but also independent experts from outside, saying there are many such experts in the requested the chief justice not to allow the current CEC to advise the court in the FCAA 2023 cases or other important matters related to forests, wildlife and ecological signatories to the letter included Prakriti Srivastava, former principal chief conservator of forests, Kerala, Navrekha Sharma, former ambassador to Indonesia, N C Saxena, former secretary of the erstwhile Planning Commission, and K Sujatha Rao, former health secretary.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Business Standard
Conflict of interest in CEC may affect FCAA cases: Retired officers to CJI
A group of 60 former civil servants has written to the Chief Justice of India, claiming that a "conflict of interest" in the Supreme Court-appointed Central Empowered Committee (CEC) could compromise the outcome of cases challenging the Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023. In their open letter dated June 30, the signatories, including former secretaries, ambassadors, police chiefs and forest officers, said the four-member CEC currently includes three former Indian Forest Service officers and a retired scientist who also worked with the environment ministry for many years. There are no independent experts on the panel. The letter said two CEC members recently retired as Director General of Forests and Special Secretary in the environment ministry. "A CEC comprising officers who had held the highest positions in the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, and were closely involved in policy-making, can hardly be expected to give independent advice to the Supreme Court, advice that is different from what they gave while they were in the government," the letter read. The retired civil servants, part of the Constitutional Conduct Group, said the CEC, formed in 2002, had a balanced composition until 2023. The earlier CEC included not only government experts but also two independent members -- a wildlife specialist and a Supreme Court advocate -- who had neither held senior government positions nor been involved in forest policy decisions, "thus ensuring impartiality and preventing conflict of interest", they said. In 2023, a group of individuals challenged the Forest Conservation Amendment Act (FCAA) in the Supreme Court, saying that it would hasten forest decline. In this matter, the court has issued four orders, including one upholding the definition of forests as per the Godavarman order of 1996. The case is pending final hearing. The retired officials pointed out that a current CEC member, while serving in the environment ministry, had "prepared and defended" the Forest Conservation Amendment Bill before the Joint Parliamentary Committee. The Act, its rules and guidelines were all notified during that time. They said several memos allowing use of degraded, notified and revenue forests for compensatory afforestation, which goes against the 1996 Godavarman judgment, were also issued during the tenure of some present CEC members. The signatories feared that the outcome of the cases against the FCAA 2023, "may possibly be compromised considering the conflict of interest of the CEC", as the Supreme Court might rely on the CEC's advice before making its final decision. Any advice or report given by the current CEC, given its composition, in cases that challenges the FCAA 2023, "will in all probability be biased in favour of the Act as passed and will thus represent a clear conflict of interest", the letter said. The retired officials said this concern is already reflected in the recent Supreme Court order on Maharashtra's 'zudpi' forests (scrub forests). The court's order dated May 22, 2025 relied heavily on the CEC's advice, which recommended the untrammelled use of these forests for 'compensatory afforestation', considering them ecologically inferior as they cannot support dense forest cover. The former bureaucrats urged the court to ensure that the CEC includes not just retired government officials but also independent experts from outside, saying there are many such experts in the country. They requested the chief justice not to allow the current CEC to advise the court in the FCAA 2023 cases or other important matters related to forests, wildlife and ecological security.
Time of India
21-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Do Zudpi Lands Get ‘Forest' Protection? SC To Deliver Verdict Today
Nagpur: The Supreme Court will deliver its verdict on Thursday in the long-pending matter concerning the Maharashtra govt's move to denotify over 86,409 hectares of zudpi jungle in Vidarbha. The judgment, according to court sources, will be pronounced by a bench led by newly appointed Chief Justice of India Bhushan Gavai. The decision is expected to significantly affect development in Vidarbha, where several public infrastructure projects have been stalled due to the legal ambiguity surrounding zudpi lands — forest land in official records but often used for non-forest purposes. The litigation challenges a series of govt resolutions (GRs) and policy changes between 2014 and 2018 that facilitated easier diversion of these lands without adhering to the Forest (Conservation) Act (FCA), 1980. Originally, in 1961, the state had 9.23 lakh hectares of zudpi jungle, of which 6.55 lakh hectares were classified as protected or reserved forests. Of the remaining 2.68 lakh hectares, 92,115 hectares were found suitable for forestry, with 73,211 hectares already notified as reserved forest under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. From the balance 1.76 lakh hectares, over 89,768 hectares were reportedly diverted for non-forest use by 1992. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch vàng với sàn môi giới tin cậy IC Markets Đăng ký Undo The remaining 86,409 hectares now form the core of the Supreme Court proceedings. Environmentalists argue that these lands are protected under the Supreme Court's December 12, 1996, judgment in the landmark Godavarman case (WP 202/1995), which defined 'forest land' to include any area recorded as forest, regardless of ownership or use. They questioned the legal validity of the March 4, 2014, GR that diluted procedural safeguards, and subsequent policies issued in 2017 and 2018 that eased diversion and permitted land transfers without central clearance. "Zudpi lands are unique to Vidarbha and have no equivalent classification in any other part of India," said one petitioner, highlighting how these tracts have remained in legal limbo for decades, stalling essential infrastructure such as schools, health centres, water supply networks, and even public institutions. A six-member panel headed by then divisional commissioner Anoop Kumar had recommended denotifying the land as forest and reclassifying it as revenue land. With multiple parties awaiting clarity — including development agencies, state departments, and environmentalists — the Supreme Court verdict is expected to set a precedent not only for Vidarbha but for land governance policy in other forested regions too.
