The judgment improves predictability for rural livelihoods and encourages sustainable planning. The order goes beyond addressing individual encroachments. It attempts to bridge legal gaps while also setting out broader policy implications for forest governance. But with nearly 88,400 environment-related cases still pending across Indian courts, the challenge of judicial backlog remains pressing.
On August 25, 2025, a two-judge bench led by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, along with Justice Augustine George Masih, delivered a public-interest adjudicated order on T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & ORS. The ruling is grounded in the legal protection of forests, judicial sensitivity, and the need to strike a sustainable balance between environmental conservation and the long-standing needs of humans.
The context of this order arises from the continuing Godavarman litigation, which concerns the classification and protection of forest lands. The State of Maharashtra had filed an application seeking modification to the previous Supreme Court’s judgment of May 22, 2025. Specifically, the state requested that fragmented land parcels of less than three hectares should not be mandatorily declared protected forests, but instead be allowed for uses under Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. This provision permits the diversion of forest land for certain government-managed facilities such as schools, hospitals, and similar public purposes. The state also sought exemption for about 10,365.049 hectares of encroached land, already in use for public and residential purposes, from the earlier directions.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Election Petitions and Compliance Explained
The Court rejected the request to exclude fragmented parcels from being classified as protected forests. It held that such parcels still fall within the broad definition of “forest” and must be declared protected forests. The Court further clarified that the state may allow specific usage of these parcels, provided it follows the procedure and fulfills the conditions set out in Section 3(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
On the second request, the Court partly accepted Maharashtra’s plea. After examining the Central Empowered Committee’s (CEC) report and noting the historical failure to properly update revenue records, the Court inserted a new paragraph (x-a) into its May 22 order. Through this addition, the Court has not only maintained a protective viewpoint for lands with forest character but also recognised the long-term uses arising from the administrative neglect and the social cost of abruptly displacing settled populations or public utilities.
Also Read: Supreme Court Strikes Down Army’s Gender-Biased JAG Policy: A Win for Merit and Equality
Accordingly, the Court held that encroachments made before December 12, 1996, covering 10,365.049 hectares used for agriculture, kutcha/pakka houses, slums, government employee colonies, schools, and other purposes would not be subject to the strict directions in paragraph (x) of the May order. This effectively created an evidence-based carve-out to account for pre-1996 social realities. However, in the context of the encroachments made post-December 12, 1996, the State may regularise in accordance with the other clauses of paragraph 138 of the May 22 judgment.
Also Read: Supreme Court on Extra-Judicial Confessions and Forensic Gaps: Neelam Kumari Case Explained
The order goes beyond addressing individual encroachments. It attempts to bridge legal gaps while also setting out broader policy implications for forest governance in India:
- Broader Conception of ‘Forest’: The robust protection of the forest cannot be limited to formal documentation only. Land with forest-like characteristics must also enjoy legal protection unless lawfully diverted. States are required to audit past allocations, and if diversion is found, restoration procedures with transparent accounting must follow. By doing so, the Court has clarified the contested concept of “forest” and reduced the scope for arbitrary interpretations by authorities.
- Legislated Safeguards: The Court has focused on the developmental use of land, with the character of forest, via a statutory route, taking into consideration Section 3(2) of the FRA, 2006. From a policy lens, it is the duty of the State to synthesise revenue and forest records using GIS as an instrument, with a stipulated procedure and timeline, and a regular scrutiny on the land usage under the FRA, 2006. These can be one of the corrective measures to bring the judicial directives into action.
- Equilibrium between a law and welfare: With the introduction of paragraph (x-a) as a judicial instrument, the Court has given legitimacy to quantified relief measures, as flagged in the CEC’s report. It also signalled the need for a statutory framework to ensure time-bound, consultative regularisation of pre-1996 occupants, while still subjecting them to environmental safeguards.
- Institutional Coordination and Capacity: According to the ‘State of India’s Environment 2021’ report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), around 50,000 environment-related cases were pending in 2019. Clearing them would require the disposal of about 137 cases per day. To achieve the targeted goal, there must be coordination among institutions at the macro, meso, and micro-levels, such as Parliament, the Ministry of Environment, Forest, & Climate Change, National Green Tribunal, High Court, forest and revenue departments, CEC, Gram Sabhas, and village-level forest committee. Also, there should be a scaling up of these institutions’ capacity to ensure that the law is grounded in the social realities, reducing unreasonable displacements.
Amid these systemic challenges, such judicial orders improve predictability for rural livelihoods and encourage sustainable planning. But with nearly 88,400 environment-related cases still pending across Indian courts, the challenge of judicial backlog remains pressing. In the absence of new statutory reforms, the demand for rulings that protect ecological commons while recognising social realities will only grow.
Ultimately, these judgments aim to build a socially just public good through clear laws, tech-enabled record systems, budgeted restoration, and stronger coordination between State, Market, and Civil Society, thus delivering lasting benefits for the environment, society, and governance.
Anshal Telang is a TRIP intern
Mentored and Edited by Sneha Yadav
References
Bhupatiraju, S., Chen, D., Joshi, S., Neis, P., Singh, S. (2024). Environmental Litigation as Scrutiny: A Four Decade Analysis of Justice, Firms, and Pollution in India. National Bureau of Economic Research.
https://users.nber.org/~dlchen/papers/Just_Water.pdf
Pandey, K.(2023). India will need 34 years to dispose of pending cases under the Environment Protection Act. Down to Earth.
Press Information Bureau. (2018). Cases pending in the Supreme Court and the NGT.
https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1541784
Pati, I. (2025). Now, Special investigation teams in all Haryana districts to probe illegal forest land transfers. The Times of India.
The Law Advice. (2025). SC Restrains Centre, States From Reducing Forest Land Without Compensatory Provision.
The Times of India. (2025). Central green nod not needed for constructions of 20k-150k sqm built-up.
The Financial Express. (2020). DATA DRIVE: Huge pendency in green cases.
https://www.financialexpress.com/opinion/data-drive-huge-pendency-in-green-cases/1983035
Nandi, J. (2021). In 2019, 50,000 environment-related cases remained pending in courts. Hindustan Times.
Down To Earth. (2021). State of India’s environment: Environment crime cases piling up, disposal slow.