Supreme Court permits limited silvicultural felling in Himachal Pradesh: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 122

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J., Deepak Gupta, J.

Can a complete ban on tree felling be relaxed to allow for scientific forest management? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case concerning the State of Himachal Pradesh. The Court considered whether limited silvicultural felling could be permitted to encourage forest regeneration, while ensuring environmental protection. This judgment modifies previous orders to allow for such felling under strict conditions, aiming to balance ecological concerns with forest health. The judgment was authored by Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice Madan B. Lokur concurring.

Case Background

The case originated from a writ petition filed by T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad, concerning the conservation of forests across India. On 12 December 1996, the Supreme Court issued a blanket ban on tree felling in all forests, public or private, in Himachal Pradesh. This ban exempted private plantations not converted from earlier forests and permits for bona fide personal use by right holders. The Court also allowed the removal of fallen, diseased, or dry standing timber by the State Forest Corporation, under the guidance of an expert committee. However, the State of Himachal Pradesh was found to have passed orders lifting the ban on felling of trees, which led to the Court issuing a stay on those orders on 14 February 2000. The State clarified that it intended to resume silvicultural operations as per the approved Working Plan, but had not yet implemented these plans. The Government of India had suspended the Working Plan for various states, including Himachal Pradesh, on 11 October 2002. This led the State to approach the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which then advised the State to approach the Supreme Court for modification of the stay order. The State filed an application seeking permission to carry out silvicultural felling, including thinning and other cultural operations, as per the Working Plan approved by the Government of India, up to an elevation of 1500 meters above Mean Sea Level (MSL) in Chil Pine, Khair, and broad-leaved forests.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The State of Himachal Pradesh, after the suspension of the Working Plan, approached the CEC, which recommended that the State seek modification of the Supreme Court’s earlier stay order. The State then filed the present application seeking permission to carry out silvicultural felling. The Supreme Court directed the CEC to file a report, which was submitted on 6 July 2017. The Court considered the CEC’s recommendations and directed the State to identify specific working circles and then ranges for the proposed felling. The Court then directed the State to identify specific ranges and beats for the silvicultural felling.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework governing this case is the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, which regulates the felling of trees in forest areas. The Supreme Court’s initial order dated 12 December 1996, imposed a ban on felling of trees in any forest, public or private. The Court also referred to the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, specifically Sections 18 and 35, which deal with the declaration of sanctuaries and national parks. The Court’s order of 12 December 1996, allowed for the removal of fallen trees or diseased or dry standing timber from areas other than those notified under Section 18 or 35 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 or any other Act banning such felling or removal of trees.

Arguments

The State of Himachal Pradesh argued that silvicultural felling is necessary for the regeneration of forests. They contended that if no felling is done, the regeneration of trees would be slow and when mature trees die, there would be very few young trees to replace them. The State also submitted that the Working Plan, duly approved, provides for silvicultural operations including regeneration, felling and thinning of trees. The State sought permission to resume these operations in a limited manner. The State also pointed out that the Government of India had suspended the Working Plan for various States including the State of Himachal Pradesh. The State also relied on the report of the CEC which supported the limited felling of trees for regeneration purposes. The State also submitted that it had identified specific ranges and beats for the silvicultural felling, and that it would comply with all the conditions laid down by the CEC and the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the Court was whether to modify its earlier order imposing a complete ban on tree felling in Himachal Pradesh, to allow for limited silvicultural felling for the purpose of forest regeneration. The sub-issues included:
✓ Whether the State of Himachal Pradesh should be permitted to carry out silvicultural felling, including thinning and other cultural operations.
✓ Whether such felling should be limited to certain species and elevations.
✓ Whether the felling should be subject to specific conditions and oversight to ensure environmental protection.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court did not cite any specific cases or books. However, the Court considered the following legal provisions and reports:

• Forest Conservation Act, 1980: The Court recognized that any felling of trees must be in strict conformity with this Act.
• Wild Life Protection Act, 1972: The Court referred to Sections 18 and 35 of this Act, which deal with the declaration of sanctuaries and national parks.
• Report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC): The Court heavily relied on the recommendations of the CEC, which had suggested limited silvicultural felling under specific conditions.
• Working Plan: The Court acknowledged the State’s argument that the Working Plan provides for silvicultural operations, but also noted that the plan had been suspended by the Government of India.

Judgment

The Supreme Court modified its earlier orders to permit limited silvicultural felling in Himachal Pradesh, subject to strict conditions. The Court emphasized that this was an experimental measure to assess whether silvicultural felling actually aids in forest regeneration. The Court noted that the CEC had also permitted felling subject to certain conditions. The Court reiterated that no compartment of more than 20 hectares shall be felled at one go. The Court laid down additional conditions to be complied with by the State of Himachal Pradesh.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was viewed as the primary legislation that any felling must comply with.
• The Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 was viewed as a safeguard to ensure that felling would not occur in protected areas.
• The Report of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) was viewed as a valuable input and was largely adopted by the Court.
• The Working Plan was acknowledged, but the Court made it clear that any felling would be subject to the conditions imposed by it and the CEC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was primarily concerned with balancing the need for forest regeneration with the need to protect the environment. The Court recognized that a complete ban on felling could hinder the natural regeneration process and that silvicultural felling, if done correctly, could help in the long-term health of the forest. The Court also took into account the recommendations of the CEC, which had suggested a limited and controlled approach to felling. The Court’s emphasis on videography, retention of mother trees, and afforestation indicates its concern for ensuring that the felling is done in a sustainable and responsible manner. The Court’s decision to appoint a two-member committee to oversee the felling further underscores its commitment to ensuring that the felling is done in accordance with its orders.

Fact:Law Ratio: The Court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (60%) than factual aspects (40%), as it sought to balance environmental protection with forest management, relying heavily on the legal framework and expert recommendations.

Logical Reasoning

The Court considered the alternative interpretation of maintaining a complete ban, but rejected it because it would hinder the natural regeneration process. The Court reasoned that a limited and controlled approach to felling, as suggested by the CEC, would be more beneficial for the long-term health of the forest. The Court also considered the State’s argument that the Working Plan provides for silvicultural operations, but made it clear that any felling would be subject to the conditions imposed by the Court and the CEC.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The need for forest regeneration.
• The recommendations of the CEC.
• The State’s commitment to comply with the conditions laid down by the Court.
• The need to balance environmental protection with forest management.
• The experimental nature of the decision, which would be monitored closely.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “We are of the view that on an experimental basis we may permit silviculture felling of trees to a very limited extent and such felling should be monitored very carefully to see whether such silviculture felling actually helps in the regeneration of forests or not.”
• “We may further note that the CEC has recommended that the size of the compartment taken up for regeneration in a given area shall not exceed 20 hectares and we reiterate that the State shall be bound by all the conditions laid down by the CEC including the condition that no compartment of more than 20 hectares shall be felled at one go.”
• “The Principal Chief Conservator shall be liable to ensure that felling is done strictly in accordance with the orders of this Court.”

There were no dissenting opinions. The judgment was delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, with Justice Madan B. Lokur concurring. The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but rather applied existing legal principles to the specific facts of the case. The Court’s decision emphasizes the importance of balancing environmental protection with the need for sustainable forest management.

Key Takeaways

• Limited silvicultural felling is permitted in Himachal Pradesh for forest regeneration.
• Felling is restricted to Chil Pine, Khair, and Sal trees below 1500 meters MSL.
• Strict conditions apply, including oversight by a committee, videography, and afforestation requirements.
• The decision is experimental and will be monitored closely.
• The State must ensure that felling is done directly by the Forest Department or the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation and not through private agencies.

This judgment could have a significant impact on future forest management practices in Himachal Pradesh and other states. It suggests that a complete ban on felling may not always be the most effective way to protect forests and that a more nuanced approach, which takes into account the need for regeneration, may be more beneficial.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

• The felling should be done directly by the Forest Department or by the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation.
• Videography of each beat where felling is to be done should be done at regular intervals to show the condition of the forest before, during, and after felling.
• At least 25% of mature Khair trees should be retained as mother trees.
• At least 40 mature Chil Pine and Sal trees should be retained per hectare.
• Adequate funds should be made available for re-afforestation.
• The forest areas should be kept free from grazing and protected.
• Sufficient number of healthy saplings should be planted for proper regeneration.
• The entire programme of experimental silviculture felling shall be done under the supervision and guidance of a two-member committee.
• The Committee should submit its report to this Court every 6 months.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a complete ban on tree felling can be relaxed to allow for limited silvicultural felling, provided that such felling is done under strict conditions and is aimed at promoting forest regeneration. This modifies the previous position of a complete ban on felling of trees in Himachal Pradesh. The court has recognized that a blanket ban on felling may not always be the best approach to forest conservation and that a more nuanced approach, which takes into account the need for regeneration, may be more beneficial.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court permitted limited silvicultural felling in Himachal Pradesh, modifying its earlier blanket ban. This decision emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to forest management, combining environmental protection with the practical needs of forest regeneration. The Court’s detailed directions and oversight mechanisms underscore its commitment to ensuring that the felling is done in a sustainable and responsible manner. This case serves as a significant example of how the judiciary can adapt its approach to environmental issues based on scientific evidence and expert recommendations.

Category

Parent Category: Environmental Law

Child Categories:

• Forest Conservation
• Silvicultural Felling
• Forest Conservation Act, 1980

FAQ

Q: What is silvicultural felling?

A: Silvicultural felling is the practice of cutting down trees in a forest in a controlled manner to promote the growth and regeneration of the forest. It includes thinning, removing diseased trees, and creating space for new trees to grow.

Q: Why did the Supreme Court allow limited tree felling in Himachal Pradesh?

A: The Supreme Court allowed limited felling to promote forest regeneration. The Court recognized that a complete ban on felling could hinder the natural growth of the forest and that controlled felling could help in the long-term health of the forest.

Q: What types of trees can be felled?

A: The felling is limited to Chil Pine, Khair, and Sal trees below 1500 meters above Mean Sea Level (MSL).

Q: What conditions apply to the felling?

A: The felling must be done directly by the Forest Department or the Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation. Videography must be done to document the condition of the forest before, during, and after felling. A certain percentage of mature trees must be retained as mother trees. Adequate funds must be made available for re-afforestation. The areas should be protected from grazing.

Q: How will the felling be monitored?

A: The felling will be monitored by a two-member committee appointed by the Court. The committee will submit a report to the Court every six months.

Q: What is the implication of this judgment?

A: This judgment suggests that a complete ban on felling may not always be the most effective way to protect forests and that a more nuanced approach, which takes into account the need for regeneration, may be more beneficial. It also emphasizes the importance of balancing environmental protection with the practical needs of forest management.