Indian Forest Act: Interpretation of Subservient the Forest Needs Elucidation Dr. Mukherjee Suparna Sanyal M. Sc, M. Ed, Ph. D, Howrah Suparna (NGO) Registered with NITI Aayog, Formerly Planning Commission of India & National NGO Portal GOI, Guide Star Online published on 20 June, 2019. Abstract In the context of law and its legal clarification in any subject, defining it's subdue matter is compulsory. Law is always followed under the decree of its rules, regulations, legislations, and norms of the concerned subject matter. Law plays it vital role in every essentiality of the Indian territory, without a legal definition, no subject can demand its legal entity and identity. The Indian Bosky is one amongst such, which also needs it legal identification in the eye of law, astonishingly, which is not mentioned in the framework of The Indian Forest Act. There are many definitions about the woodlands which covers the entire Copse of the Country. But the prime factor “The Forest” was no where defined in the Indian Forest Act 1865, 1878 & 1927. Neither any policy guidelines, amendments, five year plans mentioned its legal definition in the purview of law. Nor even it mentioned the same in implemented Forest related Act/s post independence. The Indian Boscage was ruled by the then Rajas, Zamindars, Talukdars who followed their own created law/s in their individually earmarked territories. The then feudal powers named the woodland areas as per Vedas, Puranas, Arthashastra, where the Bosky were named as Arannya, Atabi, Bon, Jungle etc, and these identifications were continuing since time immemorial having adequate clarifications regarding the subdue matter. In 1760, after taking charge of India the British Government also followed the same rules and regulations till inception of the Indian Forest Act 1865. Implementers of the said Act, the then British Government did not mention subservient the Forest in which the said Act was based upon. It is presumed that either they were in a haste situation in monopolizing absolute supremacy over the Indian Forest or their trading skill did not allow them to emphasize on such logical ethics. But the facts necessitated its answer that, why “The Forest” was not defined in the Indian Forest Act? When the, then British Government condoned the fact. Is it tenable in the eye of law? How the present Governance overlooked essentiality of such legal bindings? Why it was/is not incorporated in amendment/s, policy guide lines, or five years plans? Post Independence when India declared itself as Sovereign Social Democratic Republic Welfare State, how the Governance slighted such legitimate deed? Is it fair enough, to stand on the platform of Democracy and accept such a grave lacuna which invites to challenge the same? Thereby, it is evident that the Democracy demands a logical licit clarification in the eye of law which in not mentioned in the captioned subservient “The Forest” in the said Act which needs elucidation. Top Keywords Act, Definition, Elucidation, Forest, Law, Legal, Subject, Subservient. Top |