Tribal folks from a number of locations in Odisha are seen in a protest exterior the State Meeting Home in Bhubaneswar, demanding their land rights beneath the Forest Rights Act. They’ve been dwelling inside wildlife sanctuaries and different forest-enclosed areas for a few years.
| Picture Credit score: Biswaranjan Rout/The Hindu
On April 2, the Supreme Court docket is about to listen to a pivotal case in regards to the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, which might impression thousands and thousands of forest dwellers throughout the nation. The case, Wildlife First and Others vs Union of India and Others, has been utilized by wildlife teams to problem the FRA, doubtlessly threatening the land rights of tribal and conventional forest communities. In response to a press assertion by Marketing campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD, a motion that advocates for the rights of tribal and forest-dwelling communities), the order resulted within the pressured displacement of 17 lakh households. “In 2019, after a one-sided listening to by which the Central authorities didn’t defend the regulation, the Supreme Court docket had ordered eviction of rejected claimants,” its assertion famous.
The 2019 order was later placed on maintain after widespread protests resulting in intervention from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), which the assertion mentioned “identified procedural lapses resulting in wrongful rejection of claims”. Nonetheless, regardless of the courtroom’s directive to overview the rejected claims, the method has been plagued with the identical illegalities, elevating critical considerations concerning the destiny of these affected. “Now, on April 2nd, retired forest officers and wildlife NGOs behind this case wish to ask for the eviction of lakhs of households once more,” CSD warned.
The FRA was enacted in 2006 to appropriate what the federal government termed a “historic injustice” in opposition to Scheduled Tribes and different forest dwellers. Earlier than this regulation, almost 1 / 4 of India’s land was declared government-owned forest land beneath colonial-era legal guidelines, with out the consideration of the rights of crores of people that had lived in, used, and guarded these lands for generations.
The FRA grants 13 rights to eligible communities, together with rights over land, minor forest produce, and grazing, in addition to essential rights to handle and defend forests. The press assertion, nonetheless, mentioned that the regulation has not been to “the liking India’s forest paperwork as a result of it removes their energy to evict and harass folks in addition to their energy handy over forest land to massive initiatives or firms”.
Additionally Learn | Human-wildlife battle can scale back provided that neighborhood rights are recognised: C.R. Bijoy
Underneath CSD’s banner, greater than 100 adivasi and forest-dweller’ organisations have referred to as upon the central and State governments to do their constitutional obligation and defend folks’s rights. “We name upon the Central and State governments to defend the rights of India’s tribals and forest dwellers and to cease attempting to make use of courtroom orders, inside sabotage, and blatant illegality in opposition to our nation’s most oppressed folks,” learn the assertion from CSD. It argued that the federal government has intentionally didn’t implement the FRA correctly, both conducting no evaluations or performing arbitrary ones that repeat previous rejections.
CSD additionally underscored that opponents of the FRA will not be simply searching for evictions but in addition focusing on key provisions that empower communities to handle their forests. “Additionally they are focusing on the regulation’s strongest and most pro-conservation provisions—those that entitle communities to guard their very own forests. They need this energy and the ability to acknowledge rights to be vested with unaccountable forest officers,” it said. This is able to roll again years of progress in community-led conservation efforts.
Regardless of the FRA explicitly defending forest dwellers from eviction, large-scale displacement continues. Citing two case research, the press assertion examines satellite tv for pc imagery in Gujarat that “can not decide occupation of forest, which is what the regulation requires, and was deemed as obligatory proof resulting in massive scale rejections”; in Madhya Pradesh “the forest division has forcibly evicted cultivators from forest land, typically earlier than their claims have even been processed”. As of January 31, 2025, MoTA data present that 18,06,890 claims have been rejected, although the reliability of those figures stays questionable because of inconsistencies in month-to-month knowledge reporting.
The Centre has directed the Karnataka authorities to expedite the implementation of the Forest Rights Act in order to profit tribal communities and different forest-dwelling communities.
| Picture Credit score:
SRIRAM MA/The Hindu
This sample of criminalisation of forest dwellers is in direct violation of the FRA’s mandate. “Moreover, the shift to digital platforms has enabled bureaucratic overreach, with choices being made by panchayat officers and officers at district and state ranges, illegally bypassing the FRA-mandated authorities—Gram Sabha and Forest Rights Committee in verifying and approving claims,” CSD famous.
The broader context of forest governance in India has additional exacerbated the disaster, mentioned CSD. In recent times, the dilution of forest and environmental legal guidelines has facilitated large-scale land diversion for industrial and infrastructural initiatives. In response to the assertion, “Previously 15 years, greater than 3 lakh hectares of forest land have been diverted for ‘improvement’ functions, with almost 60,000 hectares allotted for mining alone”.
Additionally Learn | The sixth mass extinction is right here—and it’s killing people too
To counter these risks, activists insisted that the federal government should act decisively. “We demand that the Central authorities guarantee this misguided case is dismissed and that each it and all state governments recognise the rights of forest dwellers to their lands and to handle and defend forests, as required by the Forest Rights Act,” CSD mentioned. This implies not solely defending the FRA in courtroom but in addition reversing insurance policies that permit bureaucratic interference in rights recognition.
The way in which ahead
Because the Supreme Court docket prepares to listen to the case, CSD highlighted a number of key calls for that should be addressed:
- The Central authorities and State governments should clearly inform the Supreme Court docket on April 2 that the FRA is constitutional in its entirety and the method of overview of claims in addition to recognition of rights should be allowed to run its course. The case must be dismissed.
- The MoTA should make sure the overview of rejected claims follows clear tips that uphold the authority and position of the Gram Sabha as the first decision-making physique and as per the procedures for verification course of beneath FRA. The Ministry ought to concern binding directives stopping arbitrary rejections, requiring reasoned orders, and mandating using a number of types of proof, together with oral testimonies and native verification.
- Expertise must be used solely to complement and assist the FRA implementation course of —reminiscent of sustaining a repository of paperwork, permitting claimants to trace declare standing, and guaranteeing public entry to data.
- No eviction and relocation from Tiger Reserves and different Protected Areas ought to happen till all claims—together with these beneath overview—have been processed in compliance with FRA. The Ministry should concern strict directives prohibiting pressured evictions till the claimants have exhausted all avenues of attraction. Moreover, authorities discovered violating this directive must be held accountable beneath the FRA and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- No relocation from Tiger Reserves and different Protected Areas ought to happen till all claims—together with these beneath overview—have been processed in compliance with FRA, their consent obtained for relocation and relocation package deal guaranteeing due compensation and safe livelihood.
- The Gram Sabha’s statutory authority and position in declare initiation, verification and decision-making must be reaffirmed, stopping bureaucratic and technological overreach. Any rejection of a declare should be justified in writing with a possibility of attraction.
- Forest land diversion for mining, infrastructure, and conservation should strictly adhere to FRA provisions, significantly the requirement of free and prior knowledgeable Gram Sabha consent.
In response to CSD, the upcoming Supreme Court docket listening to isn’t just about authorized technicalities—it’s concerning the survival and dignity of thousands and thousands who rely on forests for his or her livelihood. The courtroom’s choice will form the way forward for forest governance in India, figuring out whether or not forest dwellers can lastly train their authorized rights or proceed to face displacement and dispossession, the motion famous.
