Consider the following statements regarding forests and their legal interpretation in India:

Statement I: The Supreme Court, in the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India case (1996), restricted the definition of forests only to those areas officially notified as forests under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Statement II: Forest is listed in the Concurrent List of the Indian Constitution, meaning both the Centre and States have the power to legislate on forest-related matters.

Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?

The correct answer is option 3.

In News

• The Supreme Court issued a warning to State governments regarding delays in identifying and recording forests, reiterating its 1996 Godavarman case ruling that the definition of forests must be broad and inclusive.

Key Points

• The Godavarman case (1996) expanded the definition of forests beyond just legally notified forests under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Supreme Court ruled that forests must be understood in their dictionary meaning, covering all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected, or otherwise. Hence, Statement I is incorrect.
• The 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 moved forests from the State List to the Concurrent List, allowing both the Centre and States to legislate on forest-related matters. Hence, Statement II is correct.

Additional Information

• The Godavarman case led to stricter forest conservation laws, increased judicial oversight, and greater emphasis on sustainable development and tribal rights.
• The Supreme Court has reiterated its broad definition of forests in multiple judgments, including November 2023, February 2024, and February 2025 rulings.