Summary
In this February 2018 order, the Supreme Court permitted limited experimental silvicultural felling in identified Himachal Pradesh ranges to assess forest regeneration. The State remained bound by the CEC safeguards and additional Court conditions, including small compartments, retained mother trees, videography, prompt reforestation and expert supervision. Earlier bans were modified only to that limited extent; the order did not authorize general commercial felling or private contracts.
Issues
- Whether a limited regeneration experiment justified modifying the earlier felling restrictions.
- What additional safeguards and monitoring were required.
- Who bore responsibility for compliance and reporting.
Held
- After finding that proposed forest circles covered too large an area, the Court confined consideration to identified ranges: Nurpur for Khair, Bharari for Chil Pine and Paonta for Sal. Permission was experimental and limited, to test whether silviculture improved regeneration under close monitoring. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)
- All CEC conditions remained binding, including the twenty-hectare compartment limit, restrictions protecting other broad-leaved trees and sensitive areas, regeneration measures and the conditions on adjoining-area operations. These conditions supplemented the approved Working Plans. (¶¶ 4, 9)
- Felling had to be undertaken directly by the Forest Department or State Forest Corporation, without private-agency contracts. Each beat required separate videography before, during and after felling, identifying the trees and retained stock. (¶¶ 9(1), 9(2), 9(3))
- At least 25% of mature Khair trees had to be retained as marked and numbered mother trees. At least forty mature Chil Pine or Sal trees per hectare had to be retained. Adequate funding, simultaneous or immediately subsequent reforestation in each block, protection from grazing and sufficient healthy saplings were required. (¶¶ 9(3), 9(4), 9(5), 9(6), 9(7))
- A two-member expert committee, headed by retired Principal Chief Conservator V.P. Mohan with a nominated Professor of Silviculture, was to supervise and guide the experiment and report every six months. The State was to provide facilities, and the Principal Chief Conservator was responsible for ensuring strict compliance. (¶¶ 9(8), 10, 11)
Result
IA disposed of. Orders of 12 December 1996 and 14 February 2000 modified for Himachal Pradesh only to permit the limited supervised experiment subject to the CEC and additional Court safeguards.