Several members from the Congress, the Trinamool Congress, and the DMK have sent dissent notes to the joint Parliamentary committee on the Forest Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2023, expressing concern over the provision in the proposed legislation which says that an area of land can be exempted from the legal framework for a quick accomplishment of any political and security-related projects that are of national interest.
All the dissenting members are part of the joint Parliamentary committee, which has a total of 31 members.
The objections have been raised by the lawmakers even as the joint panel, whose report was laid in both houses of Parliament on Thursday, has cleared all provisions of the controversial bill, thus paving the way for its introduction and passage in Parliament during the ongoing monsoon session.
In fact, the bill was listed in Thursday’s legislative business for introduction and passing in Lok Sabha, however due to adjournment of the house owing to protests by opposition parties seeking a discussion on the Manipur violence, it could not be taken up.
The bill was introduced in Lok Sabha on March 29 this year during the budget session of Parliament. It was, however, referred to the joint committee of Parliament, led by BJP MP Rajendra Agrawal for scrutiny amid objections raised by several opposition members.
The proposed legislation aims to amend the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which was brought in to prevent exploitation of India’s forest reserves and gave powers to the Central government to compensate adequately for any land used for non-forest purposes.
The Act also covers that land which is not officially classified as “forest in either central or state government records”.
The members who have sent their dissent are Pradyot Bordoloi and Phulo Devi Netam (Congress MPs from Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, respectively), Trinamool MPs Jawahar Sircar (Rajya Sabha) and Sajda Ahmed (Lok Sabha) and DMK MPs T.R. Baalu (Lok Sabha) and R. Girirajan (Rajya Sabha).
Apart from the above mentioned objection, the lawmakers have also expressed their dissent on the amendment that provides exemption for the lands “situated within a distance of 100 km along international borders or Line of Control or Line of Actual Control” and for “construction of strategic linear projects of national importance and concerning national security”.
Bordoloi and Netam said that the said clause in the proposed legislation could have a negative impact on sensitive forest covers in Himalayan, trans-Himalayan and also in the northeastern regions.
In the absence of proper assessment there will be a threat to the flora and fauna of these forests, the Congress lawmakers said, adding that it could also lead to extreme weather conditions.
Trinamool’s Sircar suggested that there should be consultations with states prior to clearing such ecologically sensitive forest covers. He even recommended that rather than extending the exemption to all lands within a distance of 100 km along international borders, it should be limited to area along the “Himalayan” borders.
The Congress and Trinamool have also opposed the amendment that restricts the Forest Conservation Bill’s ambit only to the lands that are recorded as forests on or after October 25, 1980. The Congress argued that this amendment will leave out a significant section of the forest land, and many biodiversity hotspots can now be potentially sold, diverted, cleared and exploited for non-forestry purposes.
Apart from this, the opposition lawmakers even had objection to the nomenclature of the proposed legislation, as they said that the bill should not be renamed as Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, instead of the existing Forest (Conservation) Act.
While Bordoloi said that this would lead to exclusion of non-Hindi speaking population, DMK’s Girirajan noted that “Sanskritic terminology is untenable”.
2023072042542
