Judicial activism has shaped forest governance in India. Critically assess, citing the T.N. Godavarman case.

Judicial activism means courts going beyond settling disputes to frame and supervise policy. Forests show this most clearly. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 202/1995), the Supreme Court has kept the case open for three decades as a continuing mandamus and has acted as India's de facto forest regulator. The results include real gains and real costs.

Positive impact

• Wider legal cover: the 12 December 1996 order applied the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 to all forests, irrespective of ownership or classification. This brought unrecorded "deemed forests" under protection [1].
• New institutions: a 2002 order called for a Compensatory Afforestation Fund. An ad hoc CAMPA followed in 2006, and Parliament later gave it statutory form in the CAF Act, 2016 [2]. The Central Empowered Committee (CEC) became the Court's monitoring arm [3].
• Accountability: in the Corbett matter (2025), the Court ordered demolition of unauthorised construction within three months and restoration under CEC supervision. It allowed costs to be recovered from errant officers and banned tiger safaris in core areas [3].

Limitations

• Separation of powers: courts end up deciding site-specific land-use questions. This blurs executive responsibility and weakens democratic accountability.
• Policy instability: the Court barred new permanent structures in Eco-Sensitive Zones (June 2022). It then relaxed this in April 2023, subject to the 2011 MoEFCC guidelines, showing that blanket judicial rules can prove unworkable [4].
• Implementation deficit: over ₹38,000 crore piled up with the ad hoc CAMPA. The 2016 Act itself blames the lack of a permanent mechanism for these "huge unspent funds" [2].
• Equity concerns: top-down orders focused on forest cover can sideline the rights of forest-dwellers recognised under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
• Legislative friction: the 2023 amendment to the Forest (Conservation) Act was flagged as possibly narrowing Godavarman's wide definition of forest [1].

Godavarman shows judicial activism filling a governance vacuum. It widened protection and created lasting institutions, but it cannot replace a capable executive. Court-made norms should be written into law, as the CAF Act did. ESZ master plans should be notified, and Gram Sabhas should be involved. The Court can then step back into a supervisory role, true to Article 48A, Article 51A(g) and SDG 15.