Forests are a valuable resource for humans. And India is the 7^th largest nation in the world occupying almost 3% of the world area. But on the other hand, the forests cover lies in India is only 1.8%. Forests are one of the most important natural resources, as well as a vivid expression of nature. They are also regarded as guardians and protectors of the country’s wildlife. Forests are important not only for their botanical value, but also for their recreational and scenic beauty, which brings glory and attraction to many places in India and other countries. Forests often contribute to the agriculture of the area in which they are located, whether in terms of soil fertility, soil erosion prevention, or promoting perennial stream flow in rain-fed rivers. They provide a sanctuary for wild animals, protect tribal populations, and preserve cultural identities. As a result, forests contribute to the ecological balance.

Forests also provide income, provide raw materials, and serve as a source of fuel and fodder, in addition to these environmental and ecological benefits. Conflicting views are inevitable when it comes to forest management. Ecological stability would be jeopardized if claims of growth were made.

Forests in India are under significant pressure today, and are rapidly decreasing as a result of rapid human and livestock population growth, over-use and exploitation of forest resources, conversion of forest land for non-forestry activities, agricultural development, and other illegal on forest land. Each & every legislation carries the expectations and desires of the social and political forces at work at the time it was enacted.

Historical Background

Initially, it was about the worship of holy groves, elephants in the medieval age, and how society was before colonial rule, as well as people’s attitudes toward forests.

Then there was the change in conservation strategies, with the emphasis moving from community management to more analytical management under the umbrella of the state. And lastly, the evolution of the forest laws Post Independence.

Until the early 18^th century, a large number of communities on the Indian Subcontinent relied on hunting and gathering for food. The abundant rainfall and lush vegetation aided livelihoods. These communities traded forest products like herbs and honey for salt, clothes, tools, and sometimes grain with the local agricultural communities. These hunting and gathering cultures thrive on the forest products. The importance of trees, forests, and wildlife is stated in the Vedas, Puranas, and Arthashastra.

The forests were divided into four groups: Forest for wood, Reserve forest, Elephant forest and Forest for hunting.

Forests were held by local chiefs during that period, with access rights given to the peasants.

Only surplus grain production was claimed by the mughals, as well as a tax on animals above a certain weight. Villages were self-sufficient and dealt with the state as a whole. Taxes were collected both as a group and as a household. Horticulture, sheep farming, fishing, and forest holdings were all exempt. Apart from hunting preserves, the state had no clear claims to territory.

When Europeans arrived in India, the Industrial Revolution was in full swing, and a wide variety of items had become commodities. This had a major influence on Indian society.

It shifted the emphasis away. It also resulted in the disintegration of local communities. Now with manufacture and commerce became the dominant practices everything was measured in money.

The main aim of colonial law was to take over the forest land for its expansion, so resolution rights were not granted, and tribal rights were barely documented in areas where they were.

After independence, the proclaimed forests of princely states, zamindars, and private owners were transferred to the forest department, worsening the situation.

Analysis

In year 1856, Lord Dalhousie stressed the importance of a clear forest policy in India. The reason behind this awareness was the increasing difficulty in securing adequate supplies of wood (which was needed for the massive extension of railway lines that was being undertaken at the time). The first Indian Forest Act was passed in 1865. It came into effect on May 1, 1865. The Act granted the government the authority to classify any land covered in trees as government forests and to create rules for their protection. This was the British government’s first attempt at forest legislation in India. In 1878, a revised Forest Act was passed, putting an end to decades of traditional community use of their woods and giving colonial government power over forestry. On the one hand, the provisions of this Act created a virtual State monopoly over the forests in a legal sense, and on the other, they attempted to establish that the villagers’ traditional use of the forests was not a “right,” but a “privilege” that could be revoked at any time.

A new comprehensive Forest Act was passed in 1927 to make forest laws more practical and to strengthen the Forest Act. It replaced all previous laws. The Act is divided into 13 chapters and contains 86 sections. The Act’s key goals were:

1) Consolidate forest-related legislation.

2) Regulation of and the transportation of forest produce.

3) To impose a tax on timber and other materials.

There is no specific definition for forests in this Act. It divided Indian forests into three categories: Reserved forests (completely regulated by the government), Protected forests (partially controlled by the government), and Village forests (controlled by attaching villages).

Drawbacks of The Indian Forest Act, 1927

A thorough examination of the act shows that it was never intended to preserve India’s vegetation cover, but instead was passed to:

1) Ensure that cutting down of trees is governed.

2) Make money by cutting down trees and selling forest products.

Furthermore, it denied nomads and indigenous peoples of their rights and privileges to use the forests and its product. Its primary goal was to supply raw materials to forest-based industries. Forests have long been recognized as an important component of ecological equilibrium and environmental sustainability. It is important to note that the revenue-driven mentality toward the forests prevailed even after independence. As a result, the 1927 act failed miserably to protect the forest from exploitation.

The Indian Forest Policy of 1952 was a straightforward continuation of colonial forest policy. It became conscious, however, of the need to increase forest cover to one-third of total land area. Total annual revenue from forests was a critical national need at the time. Due to the two World Wars, the need for defense, construction projects such as river valley projects, industries such as pulp, paper, and plywood, and communication, forest produce was heavily reliant on national interest, and as a result, large areas of land were cleared to generate revenue for the state.

The Forest Conservation Act of 1980 was passed in order to prevent further deforestation and to protect forests. In essence, the Act simply transfers jurisdiction over forest land use decisions from the state to the central government.

On December 18, 2006, both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha passed the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. This law aims to give traditional forest dwellers ownership rights to forestland. The law addresses the rights of forest dwellers to land and other resources, which have been denied to them for decades as a result of India’s colonial forest laws. The Act was informed into effect on December 31, 2007, just over a year after it was passed.

The wildlife conservation lobby and the Ministry of Environment and Forests fiercely opposed the Act, describing it as the “ideal formula” for ensuring the destruction of India’s forests and wildlife by “legalizing encroachments.” Some of the criticism stems from those who see the legislation as a land-distribution system that will result in tribes and forest dwellers receiving forest land. Wildlife conservationists, on the other hand, have voiced their opposition to the Act, claiming that it would make it difficult to establish “inviolate spaces,” or areas free of human presence, for the purposes of wildlife conservation. Conservation of tigers, in particular, has been a source of concern. Many conservationists have also expressed support for amending the Act.

The Act’s proponents claim that major construction projects, such as dams, power plants, and mining operations, should be monitored rather than the forced removal of conventional forest-dependent communities in order to save the forests. Several organizations argue that it is not tribes who are introducing commercial activities into forests, but rather external commercial forces that are degrading forest resources and eroding tribal communities’ traditional lifestyles.

Role of Judiciary on Forest Laws

Forest conservation is extremely important. The area covered by forest is steadily shrinking as the Indian population grows. At least 30% of the country’s land should be covered in sufficient forest cover to ensure ecological stability. There was widespread deforestation, and the forest cover was reduced to less than 18%. Originally, forests were put on the State List, allowing states to pass forest laws on their own. Forests were added to the Concurrent List in 1976, allowing Parliament to pass legislation on the subject. Despite the government’s main efforts, deforestation has persisted. The Supreme Court issued broad guidelines in 1996 to oversee the implementation of forest laws throughout the country. In India, the courts have played a pivotal role in environmental and eco-system preservation. The Indian Supreme Court has given numerous directives and instructions to avoid environmental degradation in a number of cases. The framework of the judicial system, as well as the constitutional and legislative provisions, must be considered in order to comprehend the role of the courts in this regard. In India, litigation has enunciated a web of doctrines and interpreted Constitutional law from an environmental standpoint. Non-forest activities and the awarding of leases for non-forest activities were also outlawed by the court.

The article focused on many of the major forest laws; during the British time, several laws were enacted in order to generate revenue. For the continuation of human society as we know it, forests and the goods they provide are universally needed. We generally do not consider it worthy of further inquiry since shifting our society to one that is not dependent on the forest and its associated benefits requires such a massive fundamental change. Given this situation, it is critical that we develop mechanisms to sustainably manage the forest for all of the benefits it can bring. The first step was taken in the form of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, whose main goal was to categorize forests and determine to what degree the government could intervene in private forest matters, as well as how the notification for reserved forest was made. At times, I believe the state intervened in private affairs as well. With the enactment of the Forest (Conservation) Act in 1980, a significant change in post-independence forest management regimes occurred. The Act was enacted to control large-scale forest land diversion for non-forest purposes. It did not, however, include a blanket prohibition on such diversion. As a result, large areas of forest have been diverted for agriculture, mining, and construction purposes, such as dams that cause forest destruction. Furthermore, the legislation was criticized for restricting local communities’ rights. The Government of India launched a new National Forest Policy, which represented a significant departure from the 1952 policy by focusing on environmental stability and forest conservation while meeting the domestic needs for fuel, wood, fodder, and minor forest produce for rural and tribal populations. As discussed above it is clear that we must strictly enforce the forest laws, and that all administrative organs must work together in a normative approach to ensure that the forest laws are properly implemented, since laws are worthless without the aspect of enforcement and remedies.