The Haryana government recently issued a notification defining what constitutes a forest, following directions from the Supreme Court. The apex court, in its ongoing hearings on the constitutional validity of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, had asked states and union territories to articulate their definitions of forests clearly.

According to this new definition, the definition of Forest is restrictive to

• A minimum area of five hectares is required if the patch is in isolation, and two hectares if in contiguity with government-notified forests.

• The canopy density must be 0.4 (40%) or more.

  At the same time, the notification excludes linear and compact plantations such as those along roads, canals, or railway tracks, as well as orchards outside notified forests.

While this appears technical, the problem is that such a narrow definition may leave out ecologically fragile areas like the Aravalli ridge. These ranges, already struggling against illegal mining and real estate encroachment, may lose crucial protection if they fail to meet the cut-off criteria of Haryana’s rules. This creates a sharp contrast with the more expansive view of forests taken by the Supreme Court in the landmark Godavarman judgment of 1996.

The Godavarman case, which began as a petition to stop the cutting of sandalwood trees, led the Supreme Court to interpret forests in their dictionary sense. The Court held that forests should not only mean those officially notified in government records but also any area with significant tree cover, regardless of whether the land is privately owned or under government control. This judgment gave rise to the idea of “deemed forests,” ensuring that patches resembling forests could not simply be ignored in law. It created one of the broadest frameworks for conservation in India and has guided policy for decades.

On the other hand, the Forest Survey of India uses a more scientific method. It defines forest cover as any land over one hectare with a tree canopy density of more than 10 percent, including plantations, bamboo, and orchards. It further classifies forests into very dense, moderately dense, and open categories depending on canopy thickness. This approach captures smaller patches of greenery and linear plantations, treating them as part of India’s forest wealth.

The challenge today is that the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, narrows the scope once again. It excludes two categories of land from its purview: those recorded as forest before October 25, 1980 but not notified, and those converted to non-forest use before December 12, 1996. It also exempts land within 100 km of India’s borders for security projects, along with roadside amenities and village access roads. Such exclusions may go against the spirit of the Godavarman judgment, which was meant to prevent deforestation by keeping the definition broad. In areas like the North-East and Uttarakhand, where forests dominate the terrain, the 100 km exemption could mean large-scale diversion of forest land.

The government’s own data shows that forest loss is already serious. In the last decade, Arunachal Pradesh lost over 1,000 square kilometres of forest cover, Nagaland lost nearly 800 square kilometres, and Mizoram close to 1,000 square kilometres, some of the highest declines in the country. These losses sit uneasily with India’s international commitments to increase green cover and achieve net-zero emissions by 2070.

What emerges is a confused and fragmented picture. The Supreme Court’s Godavarman ruling gave India a broad and protective understanding of forests, while the FSI offers a scientific measure of forest cover. Yet, state definitions like Haryana’s shrink the scope, and the 2023 amendment creates loopholes for diversion. In the end, India’s definition of forests remains miscellaneous, caught between law, science, and politics. The Godavarman judgment, though broad, continues to safeguard forest protection, while narrower definitions risk undermining both ecology and climate goals.

About the Author

Ravi has been serving as an Assistant Private Secretary (APS) to a seven-term Member of Parliament and former Union Minister for the past decade. Over the years, he has gained extensive experience in parliamentary affairs, with expertise spanning policy analysis, legislative research, and constituency management. In his role, he provides data-driven insights and strategic advice on diverse issues, supporting effective decision-making and impactful parliamentary interventions.