Three amendments in three years to forest conservation rules have steadily dismantled restrictions on the use of degraded forest land for compensatory afforestation, with key decisions taken at closed-door meetings in the Prime Minister’s Office.
Previously unreported court and government documents reviewed by New Delhi Post reveal that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) supervised amendments to India’s forest conservation rules — changes that have progressively allowed mining companies, highway builders and government agencies to use degraded forest lands, including swamps, marshlands, scrublands and wastelands, to offset the destruction of old-growth forests. Retired Indian Forest Service officers and conservationists say the changes violate the Supreme Court’s explicit orders and will cause irreversible damage to India’s natural ecosystems.
The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change amended the forest conservation rules three times between November 2023 and August 2025, each amendment expanding the number of circumstances under which degraded forest lands could substitute for non-forest land in compensatory afforestation. Under the Forest Conservation Act, companies and agencies that destroy forest land for infrastructure, mining or power projects are legally required to compensate by creating forest cover on non-forest land elsewhere. That foundational principle is what the successive amendments have chipped away at.
The most consequential change came in late August 2025, when an amendment to the forest conservation rules allowed degraded forest land to be used for compensatory afforestation for companies that wish to mine critical and strategic minerals such as cobalt, lithium, tantalum-bearing minerals and prescribed substances, uranium and thorium, under the Atomic Energy Act. A further category, described in official documents as “deep-seated” minerals, was also added to this list before the rules were made public. This was done after discussions held in the PMO at a closed-door meeting.
>> The 2022 Baseline
To understand what has been lost, it is necessary to go back to 2022. After nearly two decades, the Union environment ministry published a comprehensively reworked version of the forest conservation rules that year. The new rules, officially named the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022, allowed the use of degraded forest lands for compensatory afforestation, but only in clearly defined “exceptional circumstances”. More than a year later, the ministry replaced these with another set of rules for the same purpose. They were officially named the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023. Instead of limiting the use of degraded forest lands for compensatory afforestation to “exceptional circumstances”, the new rules put in place a “special dispensation” which enabled such lands to be used in many more circumstances. These included: states or union territories where more than 33 per cent of their geographical area is covered by forest land and suitable non-forest land for compensatory afforestation is unavailable; transmission line projects; laying of telephone and optical fibre lines; mulberry plantation undertaken for silkworm rearing; and construction of link roads, among others.
Separate provisions allowed such use in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana when suitable land outside forests was unavailable. Yet another rule permitted compensatory afforestation on degraded forest land twice the area being diverted — in the case of central government firms and agencies, for all purposes; and for state government firms which were granted captive coal blocks — when land outside forests was not available.
The rules published in 2022 were not liberal. They contained explicitly carved-out exceptions to a general rule that non-forest land must be used. But top policymakers found them unhelpful. Internal documents show that requests from the National Highways Authority of India and the Sikkim government, arriving within a fortnight of each other in March 2023, set off a chain of rule changes that progressively widened these exceptions far beyond their original scope. The first in this chain of rule changes was implemented in November 2023. Here’s how it was done.
>> How Forest Gate Was Opened
Santosh Kumar Yadav, Chairman of NHAI, wrote to then Environment Secretary Leena Nandan expressing concern that the authority’s proposals for “diversion of forest land” had been “stalled” by forest officials, insisting that NHAI provide land outside forests for compensatory afforestation as required under the newly revamped 2022 rules. Yadav’s letter did not explain why the authority was not arranging non-forest land. It merely stated that forest officials’ insistence was “delaying project implementation”. He requested that a “Special Provision for Compensatory Afforestation” for central government projects be “restored”, meaning compensatory afforestation should be allowed on “degraded forest land twice the extent of forest area being diverted at the earliest”.
Shortly after, Pradeep Kumar, environment secretary of the Sikkim government, wrote to the Director General of Forests in the environment ministry. His letter appears to have played a more significant role in convincing the Modi government to change its newly revamped rules. Kumar explained that 82.3 per cent of Sikkim’s geographical area was forest land. “There is hardly any Non-Forest land available for CA,” he wrote. The Sikkim government was seeking approval for an eco-tourism project, but officials were insisting on non-forest land for compensatory afforestation. Kumar warned that insisting on non-forest land would “throttle green development projects like eco-tourism, harnessing of hydro power, laying of transmission lines and welfare measures taken by the State in the Vibrant Villages in border area.” He cited provisions from a Handbook of Guidelines issued in 2019 by the central environment ministry, which had allowed compensatory afforestation on degraded forest lands for states with more than 33 per cent forest cover, and requested that compensatory afforestation for all projects in Sikkim be allowed on degraded forest land.
An Advisory Committee formed by the environment ministry examined these two requests and recommended that compensatory afforestation be allowed on degraded forest lands in certain situations and states. Those recommendations directly formed the basis for the November 2023 amendment, the first of three to come.
>> 1st Amendment: November 2023
As stated earlier, the November 2023 amendment formally expanded the special dispensation provision in the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules 2023. The amended rules listed a wider set of circumstances and project types for which degraded forest lands could be used for compensatory afforestation. What had been permissible in exceptional and clearly defined circumstances under the 2022 rules was now allowed across a broader range of situations. Documents reviewed by New Delhi Post confirm that the letters from the NHAI chairman and the Sikkim environment secretary in March 2023 were the direct triggers for this change.
>> 2nd Amendment: 2024
In February 2024, the environment ministry published a methodology for calculating green credits earned through tree plantations under the Green Credit Rules 2023. This methodology directed forest departments in states and union territories to identify degraded forest lands for tree-plantation activities, through which private companies could earn incentives called green credits. This opened yet another channel through which degraded forest lands could be put to commercial use.
In September 2024, the environment ministry published a second amendment to the Forest Conservation rules, tweaking the language of a rule introduced in the November 2023 amendment, governing the use of degraded forest lands when land outside forests for afforestation cannot be found by central government companies and agencies, and when state government companies holding captive coal mines need to carry out afforestation. The ministry described this amendment as an effort to “streamline” the approval process. In practice, it generated more questions than it answered. The questions prompted the ministry to issue a public clarification about various aspects of the amended rules.
Internal documents show that both the February 2024 green credit methodology and the December 2024 clarification were published based on decisions taken during separate meetings held inside the Prime Minister’s Office. The December 2024 clarification followed a closed-door meeting on December 6, 2024, convened by an adviser to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. At this meeting, requests sent by the Union coal and mines ministries were discussed.
A presentation made by the mines ministry at that PMO meeting shows the ministry was firmly batting for mining interests. Noting that the availability of land for raising compensatory afforestation was one of the “major bottlenecks” in securing forest clearance, the ministry requested: “The provision for use of degraded forest land for CA needs to be extended to the SPSUs as well as private sector mines without any restrictions based on end use or mineral deposit.” SPSU stands for State Public Sector Undertaking.
This request had itself been prompted by a November 2024 letter from Surendra Kumar, additional chief secretary to the then Odisha government, who wrote that “developmental activities in the forest areas” were being affected because government land outside forest areas was unavailable for compensatory afforestation.
Through the December 2024 clarification, the environment ministry confirmed that all projects pursued by central government firms and agencies, as well as state government companies holding captive coal blocks, could use degraded forest lands for compensatory afforestation. The clarification did not refer to private firms.
>> 3rd Amendment: August 2025
In late August 2025, the environment ministry implemented its third amendment to the forest conservation rules in as many years. One of the most significant rules inserted through this amendment allowed degraded forest lands to be used for compensatory afforestation, specifically in cases where companies wish to mine critical and strategic minerals, as well as prescribed substances under the Atomic Energy Act, on forest lands.
Internal documents establish that this amendment was driven by the mines and defence ministries, and that draft rules were discussed at a closed-door PMO meeting on August 25, 2025, before being finalised. A presentation prepared by the mines ministry for that meeting cites two letters written by Secretary V L Kantha Rao to Environment Secretary Tanmay Kumar. In a letter dated July 15, 2025, Rao wrote: “Mostly, the critical and strategic minerals are located in the forested areas. As per the prevailing norms, before the execution of the mining lease and commencement of production, the successful bidders are required to provide compensatory afforestation land in place of forest land covered under the lease area. I would like to request you that for mining projects of 24 critical and strategic minerals, compensatory afforestation should be allowed on degraded forest land to the extent of twice of the forest area being diverted, without any restriction.” New Delhi Post has accessed copies of both letters.
Subsequently, the mines ministry expanded the list of minerals it wanted placed on par with critical and strategic minerals for compensatory afforestation obligations. The Department of Atomic Energy separately wrote to the environment ministry requesting inclusion of prescribed substances, variants of uranium and thorium, under the same rule. After PMO discussions covering the Critical Minerals Mission and the Nuclear Mission, another group of minerals called “deep-seated” minerals was also added to the list, and the rules were then made public.
>> SC Orders & Contempt Allegations
The rule changes have faced repeated challenges in the Supreme Court. A petition filed by retired IFS officer Ashok Kumar Sharma, with more than eleven prominent former IFS officers and conservationists as co-petitioners, in 2024 warned that the changes “could destroy or irreversibly damage natural ecosystems that are supported by open scrublands, grasslands, catchment areas, etc and will transgress the paradigm that diversion of forest land for non-forestry purposes can be offset only by non-forest lands.” The petition also points out that India’s forest cover currently stands at 21 per cent of its land area against the 33 per cent mandated by the National Forest Policy. If degraded forest lands are used to compensate for the diversion of other forest lands, overall forest cover cannot increase.
In response, the SCpassed a significant interim order on February 3, 2025, stating: “We make it clear that until further orders, no steps will be taken by the Union of India or any of the states which will lead to reduction of the forest land unless a compensatory land is provided either by the state government or the Union of India for afforestation.”
The August 2025 amendment provoked a further legal response. Retired IFS officer Prakriti Srivastava filed a contempt petition accusing Environment Secretary Tanmay Kumar of violating the February order. Her petition argues: “Despite the above categorical directions, the above-named Respondent/alleged contemnor has continued to permit diversion of notified forests, degraded forests, revenue forests and unclassed forests for non-forest purposes, while treating degraded/unclassed forest lands as land for compensatory afforestation.” Such actions, she states, “defeat the principle of ‘land for land, tree for tree’, cause a double loss to India’s natural forests as there is diversion of forest land but no addition of new forest land, and undermine India’s constitutional and statutory obligations under the National Forest Policy, Article 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution.” The court has not yet passed any order on the contempt petition.
In an interview with New Delhi Post, Srivastava addressed the government’s argument that critical minerals are essential to national security. “The perceived conflict between the requirement of critical minerals for defence purposes versus ecological security would probably not be a concern if mining had been done responsibly and not destroyed our forests and ecology for the vested gains of builders and other industries,” she said. “Often project proponents’ schemes are furthered in the guise of defence requirements.” She added: “While defence imperatives and ecological security are equally essential, defence requires diplomacy, which should be the first shield rather than an arms race. Ecological security is inter-generational and conservation is the only defence. Ecosystem services provided by forests are vital for citizens, especially the most marginalised.”
On the government’s failure to seek the SCpermission before notifying the August 2025 amendment, Srivastava was unsparing: “If the requirement of using three times of degraded forests for compensatory afforestation in lieu of diversion of forest lands for critical minerals was so important, the Government should have taken the legal route of obtaining permission of the Supreme Court instead of violating its order in WP 1164/23 which directed that no steps will be taken by the Government which will lead to reduction of the forest land unless compensatory land is provided for the purpose of afforestation.”
New Delhi Post sought responses from the environment ministry, the PMO, the mines ministry, and NHAI. This copy will be updated when responses are received.
(Akshay Deshmane is an environmental journalist)
