Haryana has, for the first time, officially defined forests, "as per dictionary meaning”, laying out specific conditions for what qualifies as forest land.
According to the notification released by the state government, any patch of land will be deemed a forest if it,
Covers at least five hectares in isolation, or a minimum of two hectares if adjoining government-notified forests.
And has a canopy density of 0.4 or higher.
The order, however, makes clear that plantations and orchards outside government-notified forests will not be treated as forests.
At first glance, the move appears to simply define “forest” to bring clarity to land classification. But environmentalists warn that the fine print raises serious concerns.
By narrowing what qualifies as forest land, they argue, the policy could open the door for more areas to be freed up for commercial use, further endangering Haryana’s already shrinking green cover.
"Haryana already has the lowest forest cover of any state in the country, and the state government seems determined to destroy what little remains."Anuradha Dhawan, activist, Aravali Bachao Citizen's movement
Amid legal challenges and pushback, The Quint explains:
Why is Haryana is defining forests now?
What’s wrong with the state's definition?
How does it put Haryana’s fragile Aravali ridge at risk?
Why Haryana’s New Definition of ‘Forest’ Worries Environmentalists
1. The Backstory: How Haryana’s New Forest Definition Emerged
To understand the context of this notification, we need to go a few decades back in time.
In the 1996 judgment in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “forest” to cover all land with tree cover, not just officially notified forest areas.
This was a landmark order that widened the applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act,1927 to vast forest areas irrespective of its size, ownership, or official status.
“What the states were supposed to do after 1996 was to identify and make a list of notified, recorded, and, also remaining forest areas — meaning those areas not previously notified or recorded but qualifying under the dictionary meaning of forest or deemed forests," explains Chetan Agarwal, an independent Environment and forest analyst.
Fast forward to 2023, when the Forest (Conservation) Act was amended to state that only land officially notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, or recorded as forest in government records on or after 25 October, 1980, would be protected under the Act.
The amendment also makes the Centre the final authority for approving any diversion of forest land for non-forest use.
“The 2023 amendment to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, basically attempted to define what lands were to be covered as forest, and recognised only two types explicitly —one , areas notified as forests under any act, and two, areas recorded as forest in any government record. There was no third category of ‘deemed’ or dictionary meaning,’ which would have included forests not previously documented but which, for all intents and purposes, qualify as forests on the ground as clarified in the 1996 godavarman judgement ."
Chetan Agarwal, forest analystHe further added, "So indirectly, the language of the 2023 amendment creates the confusion that forests not previously recorded or notified may not be considered a forest that could be protected under the Act. The uncharitable explanation would be that this is a kind of an underhanded attempt to free up potential deemed forest land for commercial use."
Agarwal further explains, "The SC gave the states 1 month to set up committees and 3 months to identify all the forests in the state, including recorded forests and the ‘dictionary meaning forests."
In fact, as early as 2019, the central Ministry of Environment noted that, due to the country’s ecological diversity and varying forest types, states are better placed to establish criteria suited to their contexts, rather than following a one-size-fits-all standard.
Now, after going back and forth on the definition multiple times, Haryana has notified one.
It is in this context that the Haryana government has now notified its definition of forests.
Expand2. 'Not all Forests are Built The Same'
The Haryana government’s notification has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and activists for narrowing the definition of forests and, in effect, shrinking the scope of protection.
"Haryana government’s recent definition of ‘forests’ is a joke with no ecological or scientific basis," Neelam Ahluwalia, environmental activist and founder of the citizen-led People For Aravallis group, told The Quint.
For one, experts argue, Haryana is a semi-arid region where the natural forest type is scrubby tropical dry forest.
Speaking to The Quint, retd Forest Officer Dr R P Balwan says that the definition is in line with what many other states have also used, but "the issue is that it is not appropriate for Haryana," and "the definition on paper ignores these ground realities."
According to the India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023, Haryana has just 3.6 percent forest cover — the lowest in the country. Of this, only about 23 percent is classified as dense forest, which means the state’s total dense forest cover is barely 1 percent.
“So, the definition may work for high-forest states like Goa and Coastal Maharashtra, which have evergreen forests with dense canopies due to high rainfall. But setting 0.4 canopy density (40 percent) as the marker for a forest in Haryana is unrealistic and would exclude most forests in Haryana."
Dr R P BalwanDr Balwan also critiques the clause that only patches of land measuring at least five hectares in isolation will qualify as forests. “Five hectares is a very large area, that's over 12 acres. Any forest smaller than that would simply not be recognised as a forest.”
If those areas are excluded, Haryana’s total forest cover will drop drastically.
"Many forest patches in the state, including in the Aravallis, are smaller than five hectares. Some are interspersed with habitation, making it nearly impossible to find a continuous stretch of dense forest cover of that size here," Rahul Choudhary, founder of LIFE (Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment) tells The Quint.
Anuradha Dhawan, another activist with the Aravalli Bachao Citizens’ Movement, said, "The state has already lost much of its forest cover to rapid development. It has also diverted the highest amount of forest land for non-forest activities. This new definition will only make it easier to divert even more."
Expand3. The Aravallis Could Be the First Casualty
Environmentalists warn that the definition particularly threatens the protection of forests in the Haryana stretch of the Aravalli ridge, which are already under severe stress from excessive mining and development.
"The impact of the definition in the context of Haryana will be perverse and adverse, because it will end up excluding about 75-80 percent of the potential deemed forest in the Aravallis. And once excluded, it won’t have the protection of the Forest Conservation Act."
Chetan Agarwal, Independent Environment and Forest AnalystActivists like Alhuwalia and Dhawan, part of the citizen-led movements to safeguard the Aravallis, have been fighting for years to give it legal protection.
"The Aravallis are among the oldest mountain ranges in the world, dating back billions of years, and losing them could prove catastrophic. They serve as a crucial groundwater recharge zone, act as a major climate regulator for northwest India, and form a natural barrier against desert winds from the Thar. The range is also home to a rich diversity of flora and fauna,"
Anuradha Dhawan“Instead of protecting the half of Haryana’s Aravallis that already lack legal safeguards, the state has defined ‘forests’ in a way that excludes these areas, leaving them open to real estate and commercial exploitation,” says Alhuwalia.
Expand4. Haryana’s Track Record: A History of Exploiting Loopholes
According to the ISFR 2023, within the recorded forest area (RFA), very dense and moderately dense forests together make up less than 40 percent. This means over 60 percent of the RFA falls into the ‘open forest’ category, with only 10–40 percent canopy cover. Scrub forests are counted separately.
"Thus, it is clear that the government of Haryana is peddling a forest definition that even the majority of its own recorded forest cannot meet. Even the majority of Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary in Delhi which is contigous to the Faridabad and Gurgaon aravallis wont meet the forest definition proposed by Haryana," says Agarwal.
Rahul Choudhary, founder of LIFE, tells The Quint that this definition also goes against the Samatha Judgement of 1997 (along with the Godhavaram Judgement of 1996), which stated that even land without a dense canopy, including scrub forests and "Zudpi jungle" in some regions, is subject to the same protections as reserved forest land.
But now, the Haryana government’s new definition of ‘forest’ excludes Open Natural Ecosystems such as rocky outcrops, pasturelands, and marshes. Experts warn this could leave them vulnerable to conversion for industrial or commercial use.
"In the past too their (Haryana government) definition has been rejected by the MoEFCC (Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change), and it is very possible that they will be asked to resubmit a fresh definition."
Rahul Choudhary, founder of LIFE (Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment)The next hearing in the Supreme Court is scheduled for 9 September, and much will depend on what the court says.
"If the court orders a status quo, then areas that have not yet been notified—kept under the ‘forest status to be decided’ category since 2015—will remain protected as they have been for the last 10 years, as no permissions can be granted there till the status is defined,” says Agarwal.
Expand
The Backstory: How Haryana’s New Forest Definition Emerged
To understand the context of this notification, we need to go a few decades back in time.
In the 1996 judgment in TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v Union of India, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “forest” to cover all land with tree cover, not just officially notified forest areas.
This was a landmark order that widened the applicability of the Forest (Conservation) Act,1927 to vast forest areas irrespective of its size, ownership, or official status.
“What the states were supposed to do after 1996 was to identify and make a list of notified, recorded, and, also remaining forest areas — meaning those areas not previously notified or recorded but qualifying under the dictionary meaning of forest or deemed forests," explains Chetan Agarwal, an independent Environment and forest analyst.
Fast forward to 2023, when the Forest (Conservation) Act was amended to state that only land officially notified as forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, or recorded as forest in government records on or after 25 October, 1980, would be protected under the Act.
The amendment also makes the Centre the final authority for approving any diversion of forest land for non-forest use.
“The 2023 amendment to the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, basically attempted to define what lands were to be covered as forest, and recognised only two types explicitly —one , areas notified as forests under any act, and two, areas recorded as forest in any government record. There was no third category of ‘deemed’ or dictionary meaning,’ which would have included forests not previously documented but which, for all intents and purposes, qualify as forests on the ground as clarified in the 1996 godavarman judgement ."Chetan Agarwal, forest analyst
He further added, "So indirectly, the language of the 2023 amendment creates the confusion that forests not previously recorded or notified may not be considered a forest that could be protected under the Act. The uncharitable explanation would be that this is a kind of an underhanded attempt to free up potential deemed forest land for commercial use."
Agarwal further explains, "The SC gave the states 1 month to set up committees and 3 months to identify all the forests in the state, including recorded forests and the ‘dictionary meaning forests."
In fact, as early as 2019, the central Ministry of Environment noted that, due to the country’s ecological diversity and varying forest types, states are better placed to establish criteria suited to their contexts, rather than following a one-size-fits-all standard.
Now, after going back and forth on the definition multiple times, Haryana has notified one.
It is in this context that the Haryana government has now notified its definition of forests.
'Not all Forests are Built The Same'
The Haryana government’s notification has drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and activists for narrowing the definition of forests and, in effect, shrinking the scope of protection.
"Haryana government’s recent definition of ‘forests’ is a joke with no ecological or scientific basis," Neelam Ahluwalia, environmental activist and founder of the citizen-led People For Aravallis group, told The Quint.
For one, experts argue, Haryana is a semi-arid region where the natural forest type is scrubby tropical dry forest.
Speaking to The Quint, retd Forest Officer Dr R P Balwan says that the definition is in line with what many other states have also used, but "the issue is that it is not appropriate for Haryana," and "the definition on paper ignores these ground realities."
According to the India State of Forest Report (ISFR) 2023, Haryana has just 3.6 percent forest cover — the lowest in the country. Of this, only about 23 percent is classified as dense forest, which means the state’s total dense forest cover is barely 1 percent.
“So, the definition may work for high-forest states like Goa and Coastal Maharashtra, which have evergreen forests with dense canopies due to high rainfall. But setting 0.4 canopy density (40 percent) as the marker for a forest in Haryana is unrealistic and would exclude most forests in Haryana."Dr R P Balwan
Dr Balwan also critiques the clause that only patches of land measuring at least five hectares in isolation will qualify as forests. “Five hectares is a very large area, that's over 12 acres. Any forest smaller than that would simply not be recognised as a forest.”
If those areas are excluded, Haryana’s total forest cover will drop drastically.
"Many forest patches in the state, including in the Aravallis, are smaller than five hectares. Some are interspersed with habitation, making it nearly impossible to find a continuous stretch of dense forest cover of that size here," Rahul Choudhary, founder of LIFE (Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment) tells The Quint.
Anuradha Dhawan, another activist with the Aravalli Bachao Citizens’ Movement, said, "The state has already lost much of its forest cover to rapid development. It has also diverted the highest amount of forest land for non-forest activities. This new definition will only make it easier to divert even more."
The Aravallis Could Be the First Casualty
Environmentalists warn that the definition particularly threatens the protection of forests in the Haryana stretch of the Aravalli ridge, which are already under severe stress from excessive mining and development.
"The impact of the definition in the context of Haryana will be perverse and adverse, because it will end up excluding about 75-80 percent of the potential deemed forest in the Aravallis. And once excluded, it won’t have the protection of the Forest Conservation Act."Chetan Agarwal, Independent Environment and Forest Analyst
Activists like Alhuwalia and Dhawan, part of the citizen-led movements to safeguard the Aravallis, have been fighting for years to give it legal protection.
"The Aravallis are among the oldest mountain ranges in the world, dating back billions of years, and losing them could prove catastrophic. They serve as a crucial groundwater recharge zone, act as a major climate regulator for northwest India, and form a natural barrier against desert winds from the Thar. The range is also home to a rich diversity of flora and fauna,"Anuradha Dhawan
“Instead of protecting the half of Haryana’s Aravallis that already lack legal safeguards, the state has defined ‘forests’ in a way that excludes these areas, leaving them open to real estate and commercial exploitation,” says Alhuwalia.
Haryana’s Track Record: A History of Exploiting Loopholes
According to the ISFR 2023, within the recorded forest area (RFA), very dense and moderately dense forests together make up less than 40 percent. This means over 60 percent of the RFA falls into the ‘open forest’ category, with only 10–40 percent canopy cover. Scrub forests are counted separately.
"Thus, it is clear that the government of Haryana is peddling a forest definition that even the majority of its own recorded forest cannot meet. Even the majority of Asola Bhatti Wildlife Sanctuary in Delhi which is contigous to the Faridabad and Gurgaon aravallis wont meet the forest definition proposed by Haryana," says Agarwal.
Rahul Choudhary, founder of LIFE, tells The Quint that this definition also goes against the Samatha Judgement of 1997 (along with the Godhavaram Judgement of 1996), which stated that even land without a dense canopy, including scrub forests and "Zudpi jungle" in some regions, is subject to the same protections as reserved forest land.
But now, the Haryana government’s new definition of ‘forest’ excludes Open Natural Ecosystems such as rocky outcrops, pasturelands, and marshes. Experts warn this could leave them vulnerable to conversion for industrial or commercial use.
"In the past too their (Haryana government) definition has been rejected by the MoEFCC (Ministry of Environment and Forests and Climate Change), and it is very possible that they will be asked to resubmit a fresh definition."Rahul Choudhary, founder of LIFE (Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment)
The next hearing in the Supreme Court is scheduled for 9 September, and much will depend on what the court says.
"If the court orders a status quo, then areas that have not yet been notified—kept under the ‘forest status to be decided’ category since 2015—will remain protected as they have been for the last 10 years, as no permissions can be granted there till the status is defined,” says Agarwal.