Introduction
On March 25, 2025, the Government of Maharashtra introduced a significant regulatory shift by notifying Acacia Catechu timber, with a girth exceeding twenty-five centimetres at its thickest part, as a regulated species under Rule 37 of the Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014. This notification makes it mandatory for timber of this species transiting into Maharashtra by any means other than sea to bear the property mark of the State of origin. As a result, the movement of Acacia Catechu into Maharashtra has now been brought under a stricter regime of monitoring and enforcement.
This article analyses the legal framework surrounding this development, explores the implications for forest governance, examines relevant central and state laws, and critically assesses the policy rationale and potential impact of this move.
Legal Background
Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014 and Rule 37
The Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014, framed under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, provide the procedural and regulatory framework for the conservation, management, and transit of forest produce in Maharashtra. Rule 37 specifically empowers the State Government to notify any timber species, the inter-State movement of which shall be subject to conditions such as stamping or marking.
Under Rule 37(1), the State Government may, by notification, declare certain species of timber as “notified timber,” which cannot be brought into Maharashtra unless it bears the property mark of the State from which it originates. The purpose of such a rule is to prevent illegal logging and smuggling of timber and to ensure traceability of forest produce.
The inclusion of Acacia Catechu in the notified list through the 2025 notification effectively subjects it to this regulatory regime. The girth threshold further indicates that only mature trees or significant timber produce is covered, focusing on curbing large-scale commercial exploitation rather than minor uses.
Indian Forest Act, 1927
The parent legislation to the Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014, is the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which governs forest conservation and transit of forest produce at the national level. Sections 41 and 42 of the Act empower State Governments to make rules regulating the movement of timber and other forest produce within, into, and out of the State.
Specifically, Section 41(1) authorizes State Governments to prescribe routes, require passes, and impose conditions on the movement of timber. Section 41(2) further empowers the imposition of fees and confiscation of timber moved in violation of such rules.
The 2025 notification is a valid exercise of these powers, aligning with the constitutional mandate under Article 246 read with Schedule VII, which places “forests” in the Concurrent List (Entry 17-A of List III), allowing both the Centre and States to legislate.
Rationale Behind the Notification
Conservation of Acacia Catechu
Acacia Catechu (commonly known as Khair) is a medium-sized deciduous tree whose heartwood extract, commonly called catechu or cutch, is used for tanning, dyeing, and medicinal purposes. Due to its commercial value, the species has been overexploited in several parts of India. The inclusion of the species under Rule 37 seeks to restrict unregulated inter-State movement, especially to monitor illegal harvesting from bordering States.
Although Acacia Catechu is not listed as endangered under the IUCN Red List or under Schedule VI of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, it remains a critical species for biodiversity and soil preservation in semi-arid and dry deciduous zones. Regulating its transit helps monitor its exploitation at the State level.
Interstate Timber Transit Control
Unregulated timber transit often leads to laundering of illegally felled trees through states with lax enforcement. The requirement of a property mark provides traceability, allowing forest officials in Maharashtra to verify whether the timber originated legally. This inter-jurisdictional coordination is a key aspect of forest governance that this notification strengthens.
Legal and Policy Implications
Strengthening of Forest Monitoring Mechanisms
The notification enhances Maharashtra’s capacity to scrutinize forest produce entering its jurisdiction. The requirement of a property mark ensures that only legally sourced timber is permitted, preventing the circumvention of forest laws through interstate movement.
This move aligns with India’s obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the United Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF), which promote sustainable forest management and traceability mechanisms in forest produce governance.
Impact on Timber Traders and Supply Chains
This notification imposes an additional compliance burden on traders and transporters of Acacia Catechu. Traders operating in states like Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, or Rajasthan, which are common sources of this timber, will now need to ensure that the timber carries the correct property mark before entering Maharashtra.
For smaller traders, this may translate into logistical complications or increased costs if their state does not have a property mark issuance system in place for this species. It could also lead to disruptions in supply chains and price volatility in the short term.
Legal Obligations of Other States
The effectiveness of the notification hinges on cooperation from other States. While Maharashtra can restrict entry of timber lacking a valid mark, enforcement presupposes that the timber-producing State maintains a robust property mark registry. States that fail to implement a property mark system for Acacia Catechu may face practical barriers in exporting this timber to Maharashtra.
This raises questions of federal cooperation and the need for harmonisation of forest produce movement rules across States. In this context, the role of the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) becomes relevant to facilitate inter-State coordination through the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) or National Forest Policy frameworks.
Challenges in Implementation
Forest officials now bear the responsibility to verify property marks on all incoming Acacia Catechu timber consignments. This will require capacity-building, infrastructure for verification at border checkpoints, and training on species identification and forgery detection. If not implemented efficiently, the regulation may lead to bureaucratic delays or arbitrary detentions of timber consignments, affecting trade.
Furthermore, there is a risk of regulatory evasion through maritime routes or misdeclaration of timber types. The exclusion of sea-borne timber from the purview of Rule 37, although in line with its text, could be exploited unless further rules are adopted to plug such loopholes.
Comparative Legal Position in Other States
Several Indian States have framed transit regulations for specific timber species. For instance, Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 2000 regulate Khair and impose similar pass and marking requirements, Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh have classified Khair under species requiring transit permits, particularly due to its prevalence in illegal felling cases, and Kerala and Karnataka regulate the inter-State movement of sandalwood and rosewood under special provisions due to commercial exploitation.
The notification of Acacia Catechu by Maharashtra brings it in line with this regulatory trend and highlights a broader move towards tightening timber transit control mechanisms across States.
Constitutional and Federal Dimensions
Under the Constitution, “forests” fall under the Concurrent List (Entry 17A), enabling both Centre and States to legislate. However, “inter-State trade and commerce” falls under the Union List (Entry 42). Therefore, while Maharashtra can regulate entry of forest produce into its territory, it must ensure that such regulations do not constitute an unreasonable restriction on trade and commerce under Article 301 of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, under Article 302, Parliament may impose reasonable restrictions in the public interest, and Article 304(b) allows States to impose restrictions subject to Presidential assent. However, Rule 37, being a subordinate rule framed under a central legislation (Indian Forest Act), does not require independent assent under Article 304(b), a position upheld in several High Court judgments.
Policy Recommendations and Conclusion
The 2025 notification regulating Acacia Catechu timber under Rule 37 is a welcome step toward responsible forest produce governance. However, its success depends on several factors:
- Inter-State Harmonisation: There is a need for MoEFCC to issue model guidelines for States to align property mark systems and ensure compatibility of documentation for inter-State timber trade.
- Digitisation and Tracking: Adoption of electronic tracking systems, like the “e-Green Watch” or RFID tagging, can improve traceability and reduce manipulation of records.
- Capacity Building: Forest departments must be trained and equipped to distinguish species, verify marks, and handle enforcement without undue burden on legitimate traders.
- Public Notification and Trade Awareness: The government must circulate awareness materials and standard operating procedures for traders to comply with the new requirements, particularly at border checkpoints.
The notification, though modest in its immediate scope, is emblematic of a broader trend in Indian environmental governance, of State-level initiatives aimed at curbing illegal forest exploitation and ensuring ecological sustainability. Acacia Catechu, though not endangered, is economically valuable and ecologically significant, and its regulated transit could pave the way for more comprehensive reforms in timber trade governance across India.
(This post has been authored by Tejas Hinder, an associate at Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas and an editor at TCLF)
CITE AS: Tejas Hinder, ‘’ (The Contemporary Law Forum, 2 May 2025) <https://tclf.in/2025/05/02/regulating-the-transit-of-acacia-catechu-timber-in-maharashtra-a-legal-and-policy-analysis-of-the-2025-notification-under-the-maharashtra-forest-rules-2014/>date of access.