Introduction

The debate on what constitutes a “forest” in India has resurfaced with the Haryana government’s recent notification defining forests based on “dictionary meaning.” While the state claims its definition aligns with Supreme Court precedents, environmentalists warn that it narrows the scope of protection, particularly threatening the fragile Aravalli ecosystem. The issue reflects the larger legal and ecological contestation over forest governance in India, especially after the 2023 amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (FCA).

Haryana’s Definition of Forests

As per the notification (August 18, 2025), a patch of land qualifies as forest if:

• It covers at least 5 hectares in isolation or 2 hectares if contiguous with government-notified forests.
• It has a canopy density of 40% or more.

The definition excludes linear or compact plantations (along roads, canals, railways), agro-forestry plantations, and orchards outside notified forests. Officials argue this provides clarity for surveys mandated by the Supreme Court, but critics fear it sets thresholds too high for naturally sparse ecosystems like the Aravallis.

Supreme Court Directives

In March 2025, the Supreme Court directed all States/UTs to define forests and begin mapping them, in line with the 2011 Lafarge Umiam Mining guidelines. These guidelines mandate:

• A GIS-based decision-support system.
• District-wise mapping of forest-like areas, community lands, eco-sensitive zones, wildlife corridors, and previously diverted forest lands.
• Accountability of Chief Secretaries for non-compliance.

This directive came during hearings on petitions challenging the 2023 FCA amendment (Ashok Kumar Sharma, IFS (Retd) &Ors. vs Union of India).

Godavarman Case and FCA Amendment

The FCA, 1980 originally restricted dereservation and diversion of forest land without Central approval. In the 1996 Godavarman case, the Supreme Court broadened “forest” to its dictionary meaning, bringing all statutorily recognised or naturally forested areas under FCA protection.

However, the 2023 amendment limited FCA applicability to:

1. Notified forests, and
2. Lands recorded as forests in government records.

The government argued that the Godavarman interpretation hindered developmental projects, even minor ones. Retired IFS officers and NGOs contested this, alleging dilution of forest safeguards. In February 2024, the Court ordered States to continue applying the Godavarman definition until the matter is resolved.

Implications for the Aravallis

The Aravalli range, spread across Haryana, Delhi, Rajasthan, and Gujarat, is ecologically critical for groundwater recharge, biodiversity, and as a green buffer against desertification. Its vegetation is naturally stunted, thorny, and scrub-like due to low rainfall (300–600 mm annually) and rocky terrain. Experts argue that imposing a 40% canopy cover threshold would exclude much of the Aravallis, leaving it open to urbanisation, illegal mining, and real estate encroachments.

Furthermore, the minimum area thresholds (2–5 hectares) are considered too high for a dry state like Haryana, where smaller forest patches play a vital ecological role. Analysts call the state’s approach violative of the Godavarman principle, which recognised even small and degraded forests under FCA protection.

Conclusion

Haryana’s restrictive definition exemplifies the ongoing tension between developmental priorities and ecological safeguards. While compliance with the Supreme Court’s directive is necessary, adopting narrow thresholds risks excluding ecologically fragile zones from legal protection. The debate underscores the need for a balanced, scientifically informed, and ecologically sensitive framework, recognising regional variations in vegetation and ensuring long-term sustainability of ecosystems like the Aravallis.