-Jagdish Chandra
India’s forest play a vital and crucial role to maintain overall environment of Country. These forests and other natural resources are under threat of vanishing due to many illegal pressures we know. To protect them; Forest officers and frontline staff like Forest Guards, Foresters, Dy. ROs, Range Officers, ACFs and Divisional Forest Officers play important role to safeguard these resources. While protecting them, field staff operate in several most challenging and dangerous situations. There have been several on record incidences of attacks, assaults on them (including deaths). While performing duties they combat timber mafia, poachers, illegal miners, and encroachers while protecting vital biodiversity and forest resources. Although, they operate with the powers vested to them under various laws like the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act 1980, Environment (Protection) Act 1986 and the Biological Diversity Act 2002. Despite their performance like quasi-policing functions in remote areas, they often lack the consistent legal safeguards (under the Section 197 of CrPC 1973), enjoyed by police officers when using force in the line of their duty.
Government must know, these days, with usage of modern technology, machines & weapons culprits, mafia, poachers etc., have also developed skills using them in commencing offence with pin-pointed location by using GPS systems to locate any forest area or wild animal like tiger thus making forests and wildlife more vulnerable to crime.
Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 now, Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 deals with the “Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants”. It is the successor to Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973. This section mandates that courts cannot take cognizance of offenses committed by “Public Servants” in their official capacity without prior government sanction, thereby protecting them from frivolous or vexatious prosecution and provides a safeguard for public servants.
No court can take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties”, without prior sanction from the competent government authority.
Forest officers are public servants:
Yes, Forest officers are public servants under the Indian Forest (Act), 1927- Wildlife Protection (Act), 1972 and they are considered public servants under Section 2(28) of the BNS (the new penal code) of the BNSS. However, the BNSS doesn’t define them directly. Instead, it relies on the definition provided in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The term “public servant” is defined in this definition is broad and covers a wide range of officials entrusted with public duties.
Judicial Confirmation:
Courts have explicitly confirmed this protection. The Kerala High Court ruled that all persons falling under the BNS definition of ‘public servant’ are covered by Section 223(2) BNSS. This ruling specifically involved Divisional Forest Officers and Range Forest Officers and other frontline staff.
Similarly, the Allahabad High Court has stayed actions against forest officers, noting that an FIR against them requires prior sanction under Section 218 BNSS.
MP Police Letter dated, 17/02/2025 :
In this regard, (a letter in Hindi), signed by the ADG Police vide letter No. अवधि/अनु/भोरे/डीजीपी/51/24/286/2025/dated, 17/02/2025, was issued by the M.P. Police HQ, Bhopal refers to: the above subject, it is stated that under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, if forest officers/employees use/operate firearms during the discharge of their duties, the police will not take cognizance of a named First Information Report (FIR) registered against Forest Guards, Foresters, and Deputy Rangers in such cases until a magisterial inquiry ordered by the District Magistrate proves that the use/operation of the firearm was unnecessary, unwarranted, or involved excessive use of force beyond what was required.
A copy of the Madhya Pradesh Government Home (Police) Department Ministry Order No./F-16/266/License/96/B/(1) Two, Bhopal, dated 11/06/96, and the Madhya Pradesh Government Forest Department Ministry Bhopal Notification Page No. / Ni-3-93/2001/10-1, Bhopal, dated 28/05/2004, were also attached and sent.
Key points of this letter:
- It references a prior letter from the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Wildlife) dated 29/10/2024.
- It directs police that if forest officers use weapons in the course of duty (e.g., protecting forests, dealing with poachers/smugglers), police should “not immediately register cases or take cognizance” without proper inquiry.
- It emphasizes that sanction under “Section 197 CrPC” is required, and references older government orders/notifications (e.g., from 1996, 2004) on this issue.
- Police are instructed to follow due process, including checking if the use was justified, and to ensure action only after verifying necessity.
This is a standing operational guideline from Police Headquarters to field units, reminding them to respect the legal protection available to “forest officers” when they act in official capacity that aims to boost morale and reduce hesitation among frontline forest staff facing threats from smugglers, poachers, etc.
Why Forest Officers “Are Not Given” This Protection (in Practice)
Though, the Forest officers are public servants under the Indian Forest Act, Wildlife Protection Act, and related laws, and courts (including MP High Court) have repeatedly held that acts like using force against timber smugglers or in self-defence during enforcement are protected under Section 197 if linked to official duties.
However, several practical and structural reasons explain why field-level forest officers often feel they lack the same robust, day-to-day protection as provided to the police?
1. Nature of the Departments and Default Police Practice:
Police have a more integrated ecosystem. Complaints against police are often handled internally or with quicker departmental coordination. Police are explicitly “charged with maintenance of public order,” and many states issue broad notifications extending Section 197(2) protections.
Forest staff operate in remote, high-risk areas with frequent conflicts (illegal mining, timber mafia, encroachment). FIRs against them are sometimes registered more readily by local police on complaints from influential locals or politicians, sometimes without full appreciation of the forest officer’s duty. Therefore, the 2025 letter of Police HQ is precisely trying to address this operational gap.
2. Notification Requirements :
For full/expanded protection (especially under sub-section 2 of Section 197 for use of force), some states issue specific government notifications declaring certain categories of officers “charged with maintenance of public order.” Odisha State did this explicitly for their forest staff.
Madhya Pradesh has older orders (referenced above in the letter) and the 2024-2025 communications, but implementation on the ground can be inconsistent.
- Police often fall under clearer, standing protections due to their primary law-and-order role.
- But the Forest officers’ are yet to be given a clear cut orders from the Ministry of Home Dept. or the Forest Department of the State of MP.
3. Judicial Scrutiny and “Excess” Allegations :
Courts apply a “reasonable connection” test. If allegations involve excess force, fabrication, or personal motives, protection may be denied at the threshold (common in both police and forest cases). Forest cases in remote areas may involve more disputes over facts (e.g., “was it self-defence or excess?”), leading to quicker FIRs.
High Courts (including MP and Patna) have quashed proceedings against forest officers citing Section 197 when acts were duty-related.
4. Administrative and Political Realities:
Police headquarters has issued binding operational effective circulars. The 2025 letter shows the police leadership acknowledging this and directing caution. Forest department coordination with police sometimes lags in districts.
Local pressures (land mafia, political influence on forest land etc.), make forest staff more vulnerable to complaints.
The Foresters’ Worry:
Their concern is valid – the frontline forest guards, Range Officers and above face life-threatening situations when in the field on duty and often feel exposed legally compared to police. The 2025 standing orders are a positive step; they explicitly tell police stations to align with Section 197 and not rush into FIR against forest staff in their official duty-related weapon use.
Modus Operandi of Forest Department:
- Push for a specific Government notification (similar to Odisha) explicitly granted immunity to forest personnel under Section 197(2) protection to all forest enforcement staff in 2023 for firearm use in self-defence and protection duties, covering guards to senior officers.
- Can reach for legal precedents (e.g., MP High Court in older cases involving forest enforcement) support protection when acts are bona fide.
- Madhya Pradesh High Court in “Keshavlal v. State of M.P. (1996)” recognized the dangerous conditions faced by forest staff and the need for sanction in enforcement actions.
- Patna High Court has quashed proceedings against forest officers under Section 197, emphasizing protection against vexatious prosecutions.
- Assam, Maharashtra, Karnataka, and others have implemented similar measures. These precedents demonstrate feasibility and necessity.
Source: Google, AI and Law books.
Author:
Jagdish Chandra (These are personal opinion of the author)
