Protection Of Environment, Forests And Ecological Balance Is Part Of Right To Life Under Article 21 And Integral To Directive Principles: Supreme Court Recognises Zudpi Jungle Lands as Forest Land under 1980 Act

“Ecological preservation is not a matter of political discretion; it is a constitutional mandate” —Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling in In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands, arising from the continuing public interest litigation T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 202 of 1995). The two-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice J.B. Pardiwala emphatically held that the so-called "Zudpi Jungle" lands, spread across the Vidarbha region of Maharashtra, constitute forest lands within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and must be treated as such for all purposes.

The Court categorically declared: “Zudpi Jungle lands shall be considered as forest land within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and, accordingly, all the directions and orders of this Court, including the order dated 12.12.1996 in the present writ petition, shall apply to such lands.”

Over 9 Lakh Hectares of Zudpi Jungle Lands Caught Between Conservation and Development

The controversy revolved around nearly 9.26 lakh hectares of "Zudpi Jungle" lands located in six districts of eastern Maharashtra—Nagpur, Wardha, Bhandara, Gondia, Chandrapur, and Gadchiroli. These lands were originally recorded as “forest” in revenue records but were not officially notified under the Indian Forest Act. The State of Maharashtra, in IA No. 12465/2019, requested the Supreme Court to exclude around 86,409 hectares of such lands from the purview of the Forest (Conservation) Act, claiming they were no longer suitable for afforestation and were needed for public purposes such as infrastructure, housing, and agriculture.

The application was opposed by intervenor Prasad Khale, who pointed out the ecological value of these forest lands and urged strict implementation of the Court’s earlier directions under the Godavarman line of cases. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which submitted a detailed report in March 2025, rejecting the State’s proposal and recommending that Zudpi Jungle lands continue to be treated as forests.

Court’s Central Finding: Revenue Classification Cannot Undo Environmental Reality

Reiterating its seminal ruling in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997), the Supreme Court held that any land recorded as forest in official records, regardless of whether it is notified under the Indian Forest Act or not, would fall within the scope of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

The Court noted: “It is well-settled that the term ‘forest land’ will include all lands which are recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership thereof. The Zudpi Jungle lands are clearly recorded as forest lands in revenue records and thus squarely fall within the ambit of the Forest (Conservation) Act.”

The State’s plea to remove the 86,409 hectares from the definition of “forest” was rejected. The Court made it clear that administrative expediency or development pressure cannot dilute statutory protections granted to forests.

Balancing Development With Constitutional Duty: “The Right to Shelter Cannot Override the Right to Life of Future Generations”

The State argued that these lands had long been used for essential services and habitations and that it was merely seeking retrospective validation for existing uses. The Supreme Court acknowledged this tension between human development and environmental protection but warned that such validation must operate within constitutional and statutory boundaries.

“Article 21 includes the right to shelter and livelihood, but it equally encompasses the right to a clean and healthy environment. Articles 48A and 51A(g) impose an obligation on both the State and citizens to protect and improve the environment. These obligations are not aspirational—they are enforceable and binding.”

The Court also rejected the argument that since afforestation was no longer possible on some of the lands, they could be excluded from forest status. The bench observed: “A forest cannot be defined solely by its tree cover. Ecological function, soil, biodiversity, and landscape connectivity are all part of the environmental integrity that must be preserved.”

Directions and Consequences: Regularisation, Removal of Encroachments, and Monitoring

While upholding the CEC’s findings, the Supreme Court laid out a structured approach to balance legality, regularisation, and protection of the Zudpi Jungle lands.

Regarding lands diverted for public use before 12 December 1996, the Court allowed conditional regularisation. The State may file district-wise consolidated proposals for post-facto approvals, and these need not pay compensatory afforestation costs or Net Present Value (NPV), provided that the land use remains “site-specific” and “non-commercial,” and that future transfers are restricted to legal heirs only.

But the Court was unequivocal on violations after 1996.“Any allotment of Zudpi Jungle lands made after 12.12.1996 without obtaining prior forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act is in clear violation of this Court’s orders and must be dealt with strictly.”

For such cases, punitive action against officers who facilitated these allotments is mandated under Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. Encroachments post-1980 and commercial use of forest lands are to be reversed immediately.

The Court directed the State to complete pending forest settlement proceedings within six months and to ensure that the transfer of forest lands from the Revenue Department to the Forest Department is completed in three months.

Regarding smaller land parcels of Zudpi Jungle below 3 hectares, which cannot be part of larger protected reserves, the Court ordered that these be declared “Protected Forests” under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Special Provision for Compensatory Afforestation in Vidarbha

Recognising the shortage of land for afforestation in Maharashtra, the Court permitted the State to use Zudpi Jungle lands in five Vidarbha districts for compensatory afforestation without requiring a non-availability certificate from the Chief Secretary, provided that the State afforests double the area diverted.

Environmental Integrity of Forests Is Not Negotiable

The Supreme Court’s ruling in In Re: Zudpi Jungle Lands reinforces the jurisprudence that environmental protections are not merely regulatory procedures but are rooted in constitutional and statutory mandates. By refusing to dilute the definition of forest based on administrative reclassification, the Court sent a clear message that "ecological loss cannot be legitimised through executive convenience."

The Court observed in closing: “Environmental damage, once done, is often irreversible. The preservation of forests like the Zudpi Jungle is not just about afforestation targets; it is about sustaining the ecological fabric of the nation for future generations.”

The matter will now be monitored by the Central Empowered Committee, which has been granted liberty to file periodic status reports and assist in coordination between the State and Central Governments for implementation of this decision.

Date of Decision: 22 May 2025