The Supreme Court has said it will confine its examination of a challenge to the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 to the constitutional validity of its definition of “forest,” leaving disputes over individual land parcels to High Courts.

BulletsIn

• A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana passed the order on 16 September 2026 while hearing a plea against the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023.
• The plea was filed by retired Indian Forest Service officer Ashok Kumar Sharma, who challenged the validity of the amended law’s definition of “forests.”
• The petitioner argued that the 2023 amendment dilutes the broad dictionary-sense definition of forest laid down by the Supreme Court in the 1996 T.N. Godavarman case.
• The bench clarified that disputes involving individual parcels of land will be dealt with by the respective High Courts rather than by the Supreme Court itself.
• The Court observed it is proceeding on the basis of the definition of forests given in the 1996 Godavarman case, while acknowledging Parliament’s power to enact its own definition within constitutional limits.
• Petitioners contended that Section 1A of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, the renamed Forest Conservation Act, restricts the forest definition and excludes categories such as denuded or private forests.
• They argued this exclusion would allow the Centre, states and union territories to use land that is factually forest, but not officially recorded as such, for compensatory afforestation, resulting in a net loss of forest cover.
• The Centre had earlier told the Court, in November 2023, that it had no intention of diluting the scope of “forest” as defined in the 1996 judgment.
• In February 2024, the Supreme Court had reinstated that no changes should be made to the 1996 Godavarman definition while directing states to form fresh expert committees under the amended Act’s rules.
• The 16 September 2026 order also directed states and union territories to expedite preparation of consolidated records of forest-like and unclassified lands.
• The case underscores the judiciary’s continuing role in balancing legislative competence to define technical terms against constitutional limits on diluting established environmental protections.