The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose
And geese will still a common lack
Till they go and claim it back!
—Seventeenth-century folk song protesting
enclosure of commons in England
In the environmental jurisprudence of modern democracies, two doctrines often stand at the foundation: parens patriae and the public trust doctrine. The public goods, the commons, are overseen by the government on our behalf, for our benefit. i.e. the government acts in the role of a “parent”.
But what happens when the parent falters? What if governance is shaped not by balance, but by bias? What if developmental priorities consistently favour some interests over others? And who ultimately bears the cost when the “greater good” is defined through a narrow understanding of progress, disregarding social and environmental realities ?
Bentham’s utilitarian ideal of the “greatest happiness of the greatest number” has long influenced governance in democracies. Yet environmental decision-making often reveals its fault lines. In colonial India, forest governance largely ignored all pre-existing environmental and social practices in favour of scientific forestry aimed at maximising profit for the British industries.
Post-independence, economic and developmental imperatives, the so called need for the “Temples of Modern India”continued to reshape forests in the name of national progress. Often resulting in suppressing the the voices of communities with the least political and economic power. Infrastructure, industry, and expansion were framed as necessities for the many, even when they displaced or silenced the few.
A correction was attempted in the same, as our understanding of environment and forest improved. Acts such as The Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972 and the Forest Conservation Act 1980 were passed.
With the evolution of rising intentional consciousness, this further evolved. Programmes such as Man and Biodiversity (UNESCO), changed our understanding of best forest management practices and most equitable solutions for balancing the needs of the both the city dweller, and the forest dweller.
The pinnacle of this was the enactment of The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The Act for the first time aimed to address the historical rights of forest dwelling communities . It recognised that the policy of their expulsion from forest and ban on their activities was maybe not the right approach. For the first time, however implicitly, their rights and practices were recognised.
But was it too little too late? How did the lofty objective of the Act compare to the ground level execution ? Changing of laws doesn’t change the attitude of a Forest Department steeped in colonial thinking and practices.
When confronted with the environmental emergency we are facing today a question arises – Has the trade off between rights of forest dwellers and villagers, for the development of the country as a whole really worked ?
The ecological crises we confront today suggest that the calculus of short-term development over long-term sustainability may have been deeply flawed. Nature itself operates through balance. Governance, too, must recognise limits, interdependence, and continuity across generations.
This paper series traces the evolution of forest rights in India over the past two centuries. It examines how legal frameworks, administrative choices, and developmental priorities have shaped access to forests and control over natural resources. It asks whether current forest laws meaningfully reconcile conservation, community rights, and economic development—or whether structural imbalances persist beneath reformist language.
At its heart, this series is an inquiry into stewardship: not merely who governs the forests, but for whom—and at what cost. As Madhav Gadgil observed :
There was a Pundit named reform
Who thought it was the proper form,
To urge that progress is pollution
As the weirdly right solution,
And we got to sacrifice everybody’s health
To bloat and bloat a few people’s wealth!
⸻
Endnotes
A Walk Up The Hill: Living with People and Nature by Madhav Gadgil
An early environmental debate: The making of the 1878 forest act Ramachandra Guha, Indian Economic Social History Review 1990 : http://ier.sagepub.com/content/27/1/65.citation
The Indian Forest Act of 1865: Colonial Control over India’s Forests : https://www.thequietenvironmentalist.com/about
Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra vs State Of U.P on 30 August, 1988 : 1989 AIR 594
Orissa Mining Corporation vs. Union of India and Ors., 2013
Wildlife First vs Ministry Of Forest And Environment on 12 December, 2018
A Comparative Outlook of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 and The Forest Rights Act, 2006 by. Mr. Biplab Majhi & Dr. Reena Nand, International Rescarch Journal of Education and Technology : https://www.irjweb.com/user_upload/A Comparative Outlook of The Indian Forest Act, 1927 and The Forest Rights Act, 2006.pdf
Environmental Law in India by P Leelakrishnan Edition: 7th Edition, 2025
Oxford Handbook on Environment law by P.B. Sahasranaman, 2nd Edition 2012
Public Trust Doctrine in Indian Environmental Law: Key Concepts and Principles by Shibani Ghosh, 1st Edition 2019
Leave a Reply