Introduction
The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of India, in In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India declaring the Zudpi jungles of Maharashtra as Protected Forests under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (“FC Act”), marks a critical juncture in Indian forest jurisprudence. Situated at the intersection of statutory interpretation, environmental constitutionalism, and land governance, this ruling builds upon and revisits the Court’s seminal decision in T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, while introducing a nuanced, socio-legal framework for reconciling conservation mandates with historical patterns of community use and administrative practice. The judgment is particularly significant for its doctrinal affirmation of the expansive interpretation of “forest” and its pragmatic accommodation of pre-existing land rights, an approach reflective of a maturing environmental jurisprudence that balances ecological protection with social legitimacy.
Doctrinal Continuity and Evolution Post-Godavarman
The Court’s reaffirmation of the Godavarman principle, that the term “forest” includes not only legally notified forests but also all areas recorded as forests in any government document, is central to its conclusion that Zudpi jungles fall within the ambit of the FC Act. While this principle has been operational for over two decades, its application to lands like Zudpi jungles, historically characterised by mixed use, long-term habitation, and absence of significant forest cover, raises critical questions about the scope and limits of judicial environmentalism.
In doctrinal terms, the ruling avoids retreating from Godavarman’s functionalist definition of forest, instead reinforcing the primacy of record-based identification. However, it also acknowledges that the normative extension of forest law to such lands must be tempered by procedural safeguards and equitable considerations. Thus, while the judgment sustains the legal fiction that recorded forests are subject to the FC Act regardless of their ecological condition, it also introduces administrative protocols that recognise heterogeneity in land use and pre-legitimised occupancy.
The Normative Tension Between Conservation and Custom
Perhaps the most salient feature of the ruling is its careful calibration between statutory compliance and social reality. The Court accepts the Central Empowered Committee’s (“CEC”) findings that Zudpi lands have been home to agricultural, residential, and public utility uses for several decades, often with the imprimatur of local governance systems. In doing so, it resists an absolutist reading of forest conservation that would criminalise such usages retroactively.
This move foregrounds a broader jurisprudential shift toward recognising community rights and livelihood entitlements as co-constituents of environmental justice. The judgment neither displaces conservation from its centrality in environmental law nor dilutes the regulatory rigor of the FC Act. Rather, it acknowledges that state action (or inaction) prior to the 1996 Godavarman order created a landscape of administrative legitimacy that must be respected through structured regularisation. Importantly, this reasoning mirrors the approach taken by the Court in decisions such as Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forest, where the rights of Scheduled Tribes and forest dwellers were integrated into the approval processes under forest and environmental statutes.
Regulatory Precision and the Governance of Exception
The judgment is notable for its detailed procedural directives. First, it permits the deletion of pre-1996 allotments from the forest list, subject to Central Government approval under Section 2(i) of the FC Act and district-wise consolidated proposals. The conditioning of this relief on the immutability of land use and restriction of transfers to inheritance is a sophisticated attempt at limiting the commodification of such regularisation.
Second, the exemption from compensatory afforestation and Net Present Value (“NPV”) payments for these allotments reflects a nuanced understanding of environmental equity. It implies that compliance cannot be demanded ex post facto from actors who had no reason to suspect the forest status of such lands prior to the Godavarman ruling. However, by simultaneously demanding accountability for post-1996 violations, including the naming of responsible officers and an explanation for the breach, the Court articulates a governance logic that differentiates good faith occupancy from mala fide encroachments.
The Court’s approach here subtly challenges the administrative culture of post-facto regularisation through executive fiat. It marks a departure from policy instruments that have enabled regulatory leniency under the guise of administrative flexibility, echoing concerns raised in its contemporaneous judgment in Vanashakti v. Union of India, where ex-post environmental clearances were categorically prohibited as antithetical to the precautionary principle.
Reimagining the Juridical Role in Land and Environmental Governance
The ruling also invites reflection on the changing role of the judiciary in India’s environmental governance architecture. While earlier phases of green jurisprudence focused on curbing environmental degradation through expansive judicial definitions and centralised control mechanisms, this judgment exhibits a tempered, context-sensitive methodology. It reflects a willingness to accept that recorded forest status, though statutorily significant, cannot override the constitutional imperative of protecting livelihoods, especially in the absence of procedural lapses or fraudulent acquisition.
Moreover, by directing that fragmented Zudpi land parcels (less than three hectares and not contiguous with other forests) be notified as “Protected Forests” under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Court operationalises a category that allows for forest governance without the displacement of prior users. This is a departure from the standard dichotomy of Reserved versus Unclassified Forests and indicates a willingness to innovate within the statutory framework to address empirical land-use complexities.
Theoretical and Policy Implications
From a theoretical standpoint, this judgment deepens the conceptual dialogue between environmental regulation and distributive justice. It reinforces the idea that environmental law must be mediated through the lens of historical justice, particularly in a postcolonial state where land records, governance hierarchies, and developmental trajectories have been uneven and often exclusionary.
The decision also has implications for federal environmental governance. By reinforcing the need for Central Government approval for deletions and diversions, the Court fortifies the unitary structure of the FC Act, while also incentivising states to exercise greater due diligence in maintaining accurate forest records and enforcing compliance. It forecloses the possibility of unilateral state actions to de-reserve lands under pressure from local economic actors, particularly in extractive industries.
For policy architects, the judgment demands the construction of a robust framework for forest record reconciliation, public participation in forest classification decisions, and a transparent system for adjudicating historical land use claims. It also suggests that future environmental law and policy must evolve mechanisms for distinguishing between de jure forests, de facto commons, and legally ambiguous land categories like Zudpi jungles.
Conclusion: Towards an Integrated Vision of Environmental Justice
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Zudpi jungles underscores the maturing of Indian environmental jurisprudence into a more pluralist and context-responsive enterprise. It demonstrates that fidelity to statutory text need not be at odds with recognition of community rights and equitable outcomes. By simultaneously preserving the legal sanctity of the FC Act and carving a measured pathway for administrative and social regularisation, the judgment offers a model of adjudicatory stewardship grounded in constitutional values.
In the broader arc of forest governance in India, this decision may be read as a blueprint for future legal engagements with contested landscapes, particularly those where environmental, legal, and social histories intersect. As such, it not only clarifies the status of Zudpi jungles but also enriches the grammar of environmental justice in the Indian legal system.
(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, 29 June 2025) <https://tclf.in/2025/06/29/reconfiguring-forest-governance-through-judicial-intervention-an-analytical-examination-of-the-supreme-court’s-ruling-on-zudpi-jungles/>date of access.