E-Paper
Haryana defines forest, ‘as per dictionary’
Haryana defines "forest" narrowly, risking legal protection for Aravalli forests, contradicting a Supreme Court order for broader forest identification criteria.
Haryana has taken the extraordinary step of defining what constitutes a “dictionary meaning” of forest, 18 months after the Supreme Court ordered states to identify forests using that very phrase’s broad, common-sense interpretation.
In a gazette notification issued August 18, the state government said it was “pleased to define the expression ‘forest as per dictionary meaning’” with restrictive technical criteria that environmental activists say could exclude most of the state’s remaining Aravalli forests from legal protection.
The definition requires forest areas to have a minimum canopy density of 40% and cover at least five hectares if isolated, or two hectares if connected to government-notified forests. It explicitly excludes “all linear, compact, agro-forestry plantations and orchards situated outside the government notified forests.”
The move follows an order issued by a three-judge Supreme Court bench on February 19, 2024, which directed all states to use the broad “dictionary meaning” established in the landmark December 12, 1996 TN Godavarman case.
At the time, the court ruled ordered that states “need to go by the dictionary definition of the word forest to determine whether any work can be approved on any land”. Dictionaries typically describe forests similar to the following Oxford Learner’s Dictionary definition: “large areas of land thickly covered with trees”.
A Haryana forest official said the state would now “constitute an expert committee to identify the forest areas in the state as per the newly defined dictionary meaning criteria.” The report will be submitted to the central government, which will place it before the Supreme Court.
The redefinition, activists say, will deal a blow to the Aravalli forests, especially the 40% canopy density requirement for a region that has naturally adapted to dry conditions with scrub and open forest cover.
“Even Asola Bhatti wildlife sanctuary in Delhi Aravallis and contiguous to Gurgaon and Faridabad Aravallis would not meet this high threshold. The minimum area threshold of two and five hectares is also unreasonably high for such a dry state and should have been kept at 1 and 2 hectares respectively,” environment activist Chetan Agarwal said.
Agarwal explained that while the northern Shivaliks receive 1000-1200mm of annual rainfall, the Aravallis in the south and west get just 300-600mm annually. “This low rainfall and the rocky terrain creates tough conditions for growth of the Aravallis forests and therefore the Aravalli vegetation has adapted over millions of years into a stunted growth of thorny and dry deciduous species and scrub forest conditions.”
“At least in the Aravalli hills the open forest (10-40%) and scrub (0-10%) categories should have been treated as forest as per dictionary meaning and 10% should have been the threshold in the rest of the state,” Agarwal said. “The decision to keep such a high threshold of forest cover of 40% will further exclude much of the potential deemed forest of the Aravallis from the protective embrace of the Forest Conservation Act and may facilitate opening them up to the ravages of the licences of Town and Country Planning and Mining departments and their clients.”
The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling gave the Union government two weeks to issue a circular directing states to comply with the 1996 ruling, gave states until March 31 to submit reports on identified forest lands, and ordered the Centre to digitise and publish these records on the environment ministry website by April 15.
Since then, the top has escalated pressure on states to comply with the broad forest definition. The original challenge arose because the Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023 would have legalised all forest diversions between 1980 and 1996, while stripping protection from unrecorded forests. Retired forest officials and other petitioners successfully challenged these provisions, leading the court to reaffirm that all forests meeting the dictionary definition must receive protection regardless of ownership status.
A subsequent order on March 4, 2025, directed that identified forest lands must be geo-referenced according to the court’s 2011 Lafarge order guidelines, which mandated creation of a comprehensive GIS-based decision support database containing district-wise details of forest boundaries, protected area buffers, wildlife corridors, and previously diverted forest lands.
The Union ministry of environment, forest and climate change was given six months until September 2025 to submit comprehensive reports obtained from states. The court specifically cautioned that forest identification should follow the 1996 Godavarman order “in letter and spirit.”
A retired forest official and forestry expert was more blunt in his assessment: “The step by Haryana in drastically restricting the definition of forests is against the Godavarman order of 1996 which is illegal, mischievous and malicious. It is with the sole purpose of eliminating most forests from protection violating the directions of SC orders of 12.12.96 in WP 202/96, 19/02/2024 and 04/03/2025 in WP 1164/23.”
The expert argued that Haryana’s approach was “unscientific and makes a laughing stock of the forest department of Haryana which very well knows that forests are identified by their ecological value and not tree stands like any layman would do.”
“By such a definition, all grasslands, wetlands, ‘wastelands’ - shallow soils with little tree growth but ecologically rich with its wildlife will get excluded and decimated. This is only being done to help contractors, miners and other destructive forces of forests and this should not be allowed.”
The official emphasised the urgency of proper forest protection: “This is especially important in these times of extreme climate events sweeping across the country and while we are experiencing climate change in its most active form. Haryana too had been impacted by floods and heavy rainfall and the only protection against this is to conserve our forests and ecologically vital areas.”
