Environmental Law |1

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

PROJECT REPORT

TOPIC:

A CRITICAL STUDY OF THE FOREST RIGHT

ACT, 2006 AND ITS IMPLIMENTATION

SUBMITTED TO:
Dr. Sabina, Professor,
UILS,
Panjab University, Chandigarh.

SUBMITTED BY:
202/17, Section-D, 8th Semester,
B. Com LL.B., UILS,
Panjab University, Chandigarh.
 Environmental Law |2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Success comes to those who strive for it. To achieve one’s goal, one puts in a lot of hard work
and efficiency. In this process, one takes all the encouraging and helping hands of the people.

I would like to convey my heart full thanks to Dr.Sabina, my teacher and guide, who guided me
through this project and also gave valuable suggestions and guidance for completing this project.
She provided me with this opportunity and whose immaculate knowledge was a key in
completion of this project.

I owe my regards to the entire faculty of the Department of Legal Studies, from where I have
learnt the basics of Law and whose informal discussions, intellectual support and able guidance
was a beacon light for me in the entire duration of this work. So, with the concrete efforts and
utmost honest intentions, I hereby present this project.

Shubhkarmanpreet Kaur
 Environmental Law |3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S. NO. PARTICULARS Page No.

1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 2
2. INTRODUCTION 4
3. FOREST RIGHT ACT, 2006 6 - 17
 Evolution of Forest Rights in India
 Introduction of Forest Right Act, 2006
 Important features of Forest Dweller’s Act
 How are the Rights recognized?
 Who is Forest Dweller’s under this Law?
 Expected impact of the Forest Dwellers Act
 Relationship with existing law
 Proposed amendment to FRA, 2006

5. 17-22
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRA (2006):
KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS

 Poor Quality of Recognized Claims

 Misinterpretation and Violation of FRA Provisions
 Lack of Coordination among Line Departments
 Lack of Institutional Support in the Post-Claim
Recognition Process
 Lack of Political Will

6. JUDGEMENT 23
7 CONCLUSION 28
8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 29
 Environmental Law |4

INTRODUCTION
Historically, the relationship between tribal communities in India and forests was characterised
by co-existence and these communities were considered integral to the survival and sustainability
of the ecological system. This symbiotic relationship was acknowledged and crystallised as
customary rights over forest produce. But these rights were not recognised and recorded by the
government while consolidating state forests during the colonial period as well as in independent
India.1 The resulting insecurity of tenure and the threat of eviction led to the alienation of tribal
communities from their ancestral forest lands. This historical injustice was perpetuated by the
Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 (the ‘WPA’) and the Forest Conservation Act 1980 (the ‘FCA’),
which identified environmental protection and recognition of the rights of tribal communities as
mutually irreconcilable objectives. Other legislative and executive measures in the
postindependence era continue to perpetuate these differences.

In response to the resulting tribal agitations and unrest, the Ministry of Rural Development,
Government of India constituted a committee headed by Mr. Dileep Singh Bhuria, a tribal
Member of the Parliament, to make recommendations on the salient features of the law for
extending provisions of Part IXA of the Constitution of India (‘Panchayats’) to Scheduled Areas
(which are primarily tribal areas identified for special protection in the Fifth Schedule of the
Constitution).2 The report of the Bhuria Committee, which was released in 1995, inter alia
argued for the legal recognition of the Gram Sabha (or the village council comprising the
assembly of all adult residents of a village) as the primary centre of tribal governance. It also
recommended that the long-standing demand of tribal control over productive land and forests
should be conceded to and administrative interference in their affairs should be minimised. 3
Following this report, the Parliament passed the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas)

1
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, ‘Note on the ‘Scheduled Tribes (Recognition of Forest Rights) Bill, 2005’’, available at
http://tribal.nic.in/bill.pdf (accessed on : 06 June, 2021)
2
‘Report of MPs and Experts – To Make Recommendations on the Salient Features of the Law for Extending
Provisions of the Constitution (73rd) Amendment Act, 1992 to Scheduled Areas’, available at
http://www.odi.org.uk/livelihoodoptions/forum/ sched-areas/about/bhuria_report.htm. (accessed on : 06 June,
2021)
3
Dr. Smitu Kothari, ‘To be Governed or to Self-Govern’, The Hindu, (accessed on : 06 June, 2021)
 Environmental Law |5

Act 1996 (the ‘PESA’), which recognised the rights of tribals to self-governance, but the actual
implementation of the PESA has been far from satisfactory.

However, in a recent shift in approach, the Parliament has enacted the Scheduled Tribes and
other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (the ‘Act’) to ‘undo
the historical injustices’ suffered by tribal communities. 4 Not surprisingly, the enactment of the
legislation was preceded by extensive debate and discussion, which highlighted the tensions
between social activists and environmentalists and conservationists on certain core issues. It is,
therefore, important to consider the reasons for the emergence of the Act in the face of such
divisiveness. We also need to consider the provisions of the Act to determine the extent to which
it has succeeded in striking a balance between livelihood security and the conservation goals.
Unfortunately, a review of the legislation and secondary literature indicates that the potential
scope and impact of the Act has been reduced. 5

4
Forest Right Act , available at http://tribal.nic.in/ actTA06.pdf. (accessed on : 06 June, 2021)
5
Process of Forest Right Act ,available
at,http://www.ras.org.in/the_genesis_process_and_implications_of_the_forest_rights_act_2006#fn1 (accessed on
: 06 June, 2021)
 Environmental Law |6

FOREST RIGHT ACT, 2006

The Forest Rights Act, 2006 was landmark forest legislation in India, which recognized
individual and community rights over forest resources. The Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act of 2006, also known as the
Forest Rights Act, the Tribal Rights Act, the Tribal Bill and the Tribal Land Act, is pivotal
legislation that governs and provisions for the legal rights of the forest-residing communities,
particularly the indigenous Adivasi tribal community, over the territory and natural resources that
they have been dispossessed of since the times of colonial imperialism of the British in India.
Even after the independence of the country, it was observed that the forests were left at the
whims and fancies of some government officials who commanded excessive power. Therefore,
this act aims for the conservation of both the marginalized people and the forests they live in.

However, its implementation has not been very smooth. The legislation has seen controversies
on grounds of conservation and implementation. As of December 2020, only 46.90% of titles
have been distributed among the total number of claims received across India6

EVOLUTION OF FOREST RIGHTS IN INDIA FROM 1856 TO 2006:

EVOLUTION OF FOREST LAWS IN THE BRITISH PERIOD

1856: Lord Dalhousie emphasized the need for a definite forest policy. Railways were first
introduced to India in the year 1853 from Mumbai to Thane. Increasing difficulty of obtaining
adequate supplies of timber (needed for the great extension of railway lines then being
undertaken) was one of the main reasons for this cognizance.
Another reason – The Indian teak, suitable for ship building, saved England during the war with
Napoleon.

1865: The Indian Forests Act of 1865 extended the British Colonial claims over forests in India

6
Forest Right Act, 2006, https://tribal.nic.in/downloads/FRA/MPR/2020/(A)%20-%20MPR%20Dec%202020.pdf,
(accessed on : 06 June, 2021)
 Environmental Law |7

1878: The Forest Act of 1878 was introduced and it truncated the centuries-old traditional use by
communities of their forests and secured the colonial governments control over the forestry. The
provision of this Act established a virtual State monopoly over the forests in a legal sense on one
hand, and attempted to establish, on the other, that the customary use of the forests by the
villagers was not a ‘right’, but a ‘privilege’ that could be withdrawn at will.

1927:  The Indian Forest Act, 1927. In continuance with the forest use policy of 1878, this
landmark law – India’s main forest law had nothing to do with conservation. It was created to
serve the British need for timber. It sought to override customary rights and forest management
systems by declaring forests state property and exploiting their timber.
This Act does not lay down a specific definition for forests. The act establishes three categories
of forests, reserve forest, protected forest and village forest.

EVOLUTION OF FOREST LAWS IN THE POST-INDEPENDENCE PERIOD:

1952: ‘National interests’ overrode all interests and forests were viewed as a national asset. It
was made clear that local priorities and interests and claims of the communities around forest
areas should be subservient to larger national interests

1976: National Commission on Agriculture recommended that ‘production of industrial wood

would have to be the raison d’etre for the existence of forests’, and this would have priority over
the needs of individuals and communities.

The same year also witnessed the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution 7, which transferred the
forests from the State List to the Concurrent List, thus re-emphasizing the role of the Central
Government in the management of forests.

1980: Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was passed to check further deforestation and conserve
forests. 4 major objectives of this act were –
1) restricting the use of forest land for non-forest purposes
2) preventing the de-reservation of forests that have been reserved under the Indian
Forest Act, 1927

7
The Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976
 Environmental Law |8

3) restrict leasing of forest land to private individuals, authority, corporations not

owned by the Government
4) to prevent clear felling of naturally grown trees
In essence, the Act merely shifts powers for decisions concerning forest land use from the State
to the Centre.

1988: National Forest Policy 1988 was enacted and this was a drastic shift in the approach
towards management of forests in comparison to the post-independence Forest Policy of 1952.8

Some of the other acts related with forestry and tree plantation are as follows:

 The Wildlife Protection Act 1972

 The Environment Protection Act 1986
 The Biodiversity Protection Act 2003

8
Evolution of Forest Right Act,2006 , available at : https://www.civilsdaily.com/evolution-of-forest-rights-in-india-
from-1856-to-2006-in-depth-analysis-of-fra-its-issues/,(accessed on : 06 June, 2021)
 Environmental Law |9

INTRODUCTION OF FOREST RIGHTS ACT, 2006

For the first time, the Government of India via the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Forest
Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, admitted that

Forest rights on the ancestral lands and their habitat were not adequately recognized in
the consolidation of state forests during the colonial periods as well as in Independent
India resulting in Historical injustice with the scheduled tribes and other traditional
forest dwellers, who are integral to the very survival of the forest ecosystem.

The Forest Rights Act of 2006 is designed to grant the following things:
 Legal recognition to the rights of traditional forest-dwelling communities in order to
partially correct the injustice caused by forest laws over the decades;
 Creating a beginning towards giving communities, as well as the public, a voice in forest
and wildlife conservation.
Important Features of The Forest Dwellers Act :
In brief, the Act offers three important rights to forest dwelling people, which is really humane
and historic as well:

 TITLE RIGHTS (OWNERSHIP) –

 According to Section 4(3) of the Act, a date has been affixed for determining whether
the rights to land which has not been cultivated before and after 31st December 2005.
 Under Section 3(1)(a) read with Section 4(6), as long as the land that is being
cultivated by themselves for their livelihood but whose documents are not available at
the claimant’s disposal, a minimum of 4 hectares of land can be claimed.
 As per Section 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g), if the land of the claimant has been illegally
occupied by the Forest Department or is subject to a Forest-Revenue department’s
dispute, he or she can still claim those land rights on presentation of a patta or a
government lease.
 Section 4(4) of the Act provides for the protection of the land in a way that permits
the selling or transfer to anyone except through inheritance.
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 10

No one gets rights to any land that he has not been cultivating prior to December 13,
2005 and that he is not cultivating right now. Those who are cultivating land but don't
have document can claim up to 4 hectares, as long as they are cultivating the land
themselves for a livelihood. Those who have a patta or a government lease, but whose
land has been illegally taken by the Forest Department or whose land is the subject of a
dispute between Forest and Revenue Departments, can claim those lands. There is no
question of granting 4 hectares of land to every family. If I am cultivating half hectare on
December 13, 2005, I receive title to that half hectare only; and if I am cultivating
nothing, I receive nothing. If I am cultivating more than 4 hectares without documents or
a dispute, I receive title to only 4 hectares.9

The land cannot be sold or transferred to anyone except by inheritance.

 USE RIGHTS - to minor forest produce (also including ownership), to grazing areas, to
pastoralist routes, etc.

The right of usage and/or collection of the following have been enlisted by the Act:

 Section 3(1)(c) provisions for the rights to use minor, “traditionally” collected

products manufactured by forests such as tendu patta, herbs or plants of medicinal
benefits. Nonetheless, timber has been left excluded from this list as this would
have facilitated rampant deforestation.
 Section 3 also enlists places such as grazing grounds and water bodies which can
be used by the forest dwellers.
 Special provision has been laid down in the act for the lands of traditionally
nomadic or pastoralist communities which do not follow a culture of settled
agriculture and move to different places along with their herds.10

 FOREST MANAGEMENT RIGHTS - to protect forests and wildlife.

9
Rights of Forest Dwellers, available at : https://www.ideasforindia.in/topics/environment/implementing-forest-
rights-act-story-of-two-villages-in-maharashtra.html, (accessed on : 06 June, 2021)
10
All about Forest Right Act,2006 in India, available at: https://blog.ipleaders.in/forest-rights-act-2006-advantages-
disadvantages-environment-conservation/, (accessed on : 06 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 11

Though the forest is supposed to belong to all of us, till date no one except the Forest
Department had a right to protect it. If the Forest Department should decide to destroy it,
or to hand it over to someone who would, stopping them was a criminal offence.
For the first time, this law also gives the community the right to protect and manage the
forest. Section 3(1)(i) provide a right and a power to conserve community forest
resources, while section 5 gives the community a general power to protect wildlife,
forests, etc. This is vital for the thousands of village communities who are protecting their
forests and wildlife against threats from forest mafias, industries and land grabbers, most
of whom operate in connivance with the Forest Department.11

Thus, the Act seeks to recognize and confer forest rights to forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes
(FDSTs) and other traditional forest dwellers. Such rights include rights to hold, occupy, and live
in forest land, ie, rights of access to forest produce, rights to collect and use it, and any other
traditional right that have been enjoyed by forest dwellers. The government will still have access
to forest land for developmental activities like schools, hospitals, anganwadis, drinking water,
water pipelines, roads, electric and telecommunication lines, etc through the consent of the
relevant Gram Sabha.

Supremacy of Gram Sabha:

Making Gram Sabha the supreme authority is an important feature will allow grass-root
democracy and free of decisions to the historically neglected tribals. It is perfectly in line with
another important piece of legislation for tribals, namely the PESA Act of 1996. If implemented
honestly, this would allow the local tribals communities manage their natural resources using
their traditional knowledge. As per the Act, the Gram Sabha has been designated as the
competent authority for initiating the process of determining the nature and extent of individual
or community forest rights or both that may be given to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and
other traditional forest dwellers.

Vesting rights in the village community is a very healthy trend in the long run for protection,
conservation and regeneration of wild life, forests and biodiversity.

11
Forest Right Act, available at : https://www.insightsonindia.com/2019/02/11/forest-rights-act/, (accessed on : 06
June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 12

A Gram Sabha is a village assembly consisting of all people registered in the electoral roll of that
village or group of villages, and forms a strong base for decentralization of power. The Gram
Sabha also has the final word on whether the State can take away forest land for the purposes
mentioned in the Act, and determine the nature and extent of individual or community rights in
area of its jurisdiction.12

HOW ARE THE RIGHTS RECOGNIZED?

Section 6 of the Act provides a transparent three step procedure for deciding on who gets rights.

 First, the Gram Sabha (full village assembly, NOT the Gram Panchayat) makes a
recommendation - ie who has been cultivating land for how long, which minor forest
produce is collected, etc. The gram Sabha plays this role because it is a public body
where all people participate, and hence is fully democratic and transparent.
 The Gram Sabha's recommendation goes through two stages of screening committees at
the taluka and district levels. The district level committee makes the final decision. The
Committees have six members - three government officers and three elected persons. At
both the taluka and the district levels, any person who believes a claim is false can appeal
to the Committees, and if they prove their case the right is denied. Finally, land
recognized under this Act cannot be sold or transferred.13

Critics have been vocal on this empowerment of Gram Sabhas. They feel the rights and duties of
the Gram Sabha have been left rather vague and unclear, especially with regard to their
jurisdiction. The Act is silent about remedial actions in case of conflict of interests or opinions
when more than one Gram Sabhas is involved.

WHO IS A FOREST DWELLER UNDER THIS LAW?

There are two stages to be eligible under this Act. First, everyone has to satisfy two conditions:

1. Primarily residing in forests or forest lands;

12
Empowerment of gram sabha in FRA, 2006, available at:
https://www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/opinion-to-maintain-sustainability-gram-sabhas-have-to-be-
empowered-11579631218057.html, (accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
13
A weapon of democracy in forest , FRA,2006, available at : https://forestrightsact.com/what-is-this-act-about/,
(accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 13

2. Depends on forests and forest land for a livelihood (namely "bona fide livelihood needs")

Second, you have to prove:

 That the above conditions have been true for 75 years, in which case you are an Other
Traditional Forest Dweller (Section. 2(o)); OR
 That you are a member of a Scheduled Tribe (Section 2(c)); and
 That you are residing in the area where they are Scheduled (Section 4(1)). In this case
you are a Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribe.

EXPECTED IMPACT OF THE FOREST DWELLERS ACT:

A. Eliminate Historical Injustice

Tribal have been living in forest land for generations, cultivating and collecting forest
produce. There exists an intrinsic relationship between the forest dwelling people and the
surrounding resources in India. They are inseparable from each other and integral to the
very survival and sustainability of the forest eco-systems. Taking them as mere enemies or
plunderers of resources is nothing but betrayal of the historic tradition of peaceful
coexistence between the forests and the tribes.
They became illegal occupants in their own land because they never had the tradition of
having paper titles (and the government never gave them). Constant displacement of these
people due to ‘development projects’ left them cut off from their traditional way of living
and fighting for survival. The FRA offers legal safety against their exploitation and evictions. 14

B. Environmental Protection
Branding native forest tribes as threat to forest and natural environment is no more than a ploy to
drive them away and take control of forest resources for industrial and commercial exploitation.
If forests and the natural resources in them exist today, it is because of the poor tribals lead a
symbiotic (and non-exploitative) lifestyle. The only motive that brings the outsiders (particularly
the corporate houses and big businesses) to the forests is the greed for minerals and natural
resources. They will also be the first to run away once they have exhausted all the money making
natural resources. On the contrary, tribals’ simple lifestyle offers the best protection to the
14
Insights of Forest Right Act,2006, available at : https://www.conservationindia.org/resources/facts-about-the-
forests-rights-act, (accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 14

forests; they are the “most effective conservationists” of forests without having that label. The
Forest Rights Act recognizes this historical fact and rightly wants to put their traditional
knowledge to stop destruction of forests.

C. Stop Organized Land Grabbing

The local opposition to the plans of Vedanta and Sterlite Industries reflects how the interests of
the poor and simple people can be brushed aside by governments, in favor of large scale
industrial projects. In all such cases of large projects causing wide spread environmental damage,
the victims of forced eviction are weakened due to lack of land rights. The Forest Act will,
hopefully, go some way towards addressing this situation. While there is always a chance of
misuse of any law by the rich and powerful, the Gram Sabhas constituted under this Act are far
less prone to misuse than a handful of State officials who have enjoyed discretionary powers
under the previous acts.15

First Community Rights Under FRA

In 2009, two Tribal villages – Mendha-Lekha near Dhanora and Marda near Potegaon – in the
Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra won the first community rights in the country under the Forest
Rights Act, 2006. It provides virtual ownership of the forest surrounding a village to the village
community. Mendha-Lekha and Marda villages got legal rights to manage and utilize about 1800
and 880 hectares of forests respectively.
In the mid nineties, Mendha-Lekha had also hit the headlines with its Mawa Nate Mawa Raj (We
Govern Ourselves) slogan, declaring itself as a self-determining village implementing its own
development programs with least governmental intervention, drawing strength from provisions
of the Panchayati Raj Act. It was also the first village to come out with a biodiversity register
(record of the bio-diversity in the forest around the village) under the Biodiversity Act.
“It is the tribals and traditional forest-dwellers who have protected the forest while outsiders
have destroyed it. That’s why the Act seeks to empower them to manage their own forests.”

RELATIONSHIP WITH EXISTING LAWS

15
Implementing Forest Right Act,2006, Available at: https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-
editorials/implementing-forest-rights, (accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 15

The provisions of the Forest Rights Act are in addition to and not in derogation of other laws that
are in force, such as the Forest Act, the Forest Conservation Act etc. As a result, while the forest
dwelling schedule tribes (FDSTs) and/ or other traditional forest dwellers may be vested with
certain forest rights under the Act, they may be unable to exercise them because they may be
subject to the provisions of the other applicable laws. Problems also arise regarding the
jurisdiction of the various authorities under these separate but overlapping laws.16
Unless the FRA provisions supersede all other existing laws, the tribals are unlikely to gain
any meaningful benefit from this act. This provision may also adversely affect the relationship
between the provisions of the Act and other laws if explicit requirements for conservation and
sustainability, which are embodied in the other laws, do not complement the provision of rights
under the Act.17
Further clarity is required in this regard to address cases where forest/ wildlife/ biodiversity
damage is caused by the establishment and enjoyment of rights granted under the Act. It is also
important to note that the application of this provision is subject to the other provisions of the
Act. Therefore, in case the provisions of the other laws contradict the process of recognition of
forest rights stipulated in the Act, the latter will prevail.18

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FRA (2006) – EFFORTS TO DILUTE IT?

As with any bureaucracy, the forest bureaucracy does not want to give up its power; and forest
dwellers continue to have cases filed against them for doing things that are now their legal right
under the FRA. In March 2012 the Ministry of Environment and Forests tabled an amendment to
the Forest Rights Act in the Rajya Sabha. The new amendment deceptively appears people-
friendly.
The amendment supposedly aims to reduce false cases against forest dwellers. The proposal
increases the fine amount (up to Rs 10,000) for which "compounding" (closing the case when the
fine is paid, without a court trial) is possible. This looks like a good idea, until one recognizes

16
Ashish Kothari and Neema Pathak, ‘Will the Forest Rights Bill Save Both Tribals and Tigers?’, available at
http://www.merinews.com/ catFull.jsp?articleID=123265&catID=2&category=Nation, (accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
17
Ashish Kothari, ‘Rights and Promises’, Frontline, page 64. See the Report of the JPC available at http:/
/www.prsindia.org/docs/bills/1167469383/ bill53_2007010353_joint_committee_report.pdf(accessed on : 07
June, 2021)
18
The intent of the Act is to record the unrecorded rights of tribal communities. See Sanjay Upadhyay, ‘Missing the
Tribal for the Trees, , available at http://www.livemint.com/2008/02/03232126/Missingthe-tribal-for-the-tre.html,
(accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 16

that it will simply mean that even more cases will be filed in order to extract bribes in exchange
for compounding (release).
The amendment proposal also makes a mockery of the powers of the Gram Sabha. It proposes
that when a forest official decides to compound an offence, he or she will consult the Gram
Sabha. He doesn’t have to consult the Gram Sabha while booking someone for an offence, but
only when deciding whether to fine the person. Either way, the Gram Sabha has no power to do
anything about the case itself. What is the purpose of such a sham "consultation"?
Under the Forest Rights Act and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, Gram
Sabhas in forest and Scheduled Areas have powers to manage and protect forests. Apart from
streamlining the set procedures and removing bureaucratic hurdles of forest department, the most
important the FRA and PESA act require is do declare them above all other existing laws
applicable in their domain

STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FRA

(2006): KEY ISSUES AND CONCERNS
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 17

The Forest Rights Act may have all the best intentions for protecting the interests of forest
dwelling tribes, but in reality its implementation is as superficial, if not worst, as the PESA Act,
1996. Forest officials still behave as if these acts don’t exist and consulting Gram Sabhas is a
ritual state authorities rarely bother to perform and clear large so-called “developmental projects”
as a matter of routine.

In the current situation the rights of the majority of tribal and other traditional forest dwellers are
being denied and the purpose of the legislation is being defeated. This is not merely a result of
bureaucratic failure; both the Central and the State governments have actively pursued policies
that are in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the Act.19

This section gives an overview of forest rights claims and trends in the recognition of both
individual forest rights (IFR) and community forest rights (CFR) claims in 2008–20, followed by
a discussion on the major issues and concerns in the implementation of the FRA. The MoTA,
being the nodal agency, has consolidated a State-wise data set on the implementation status of
FRA and presents it under two broad categories: IFR and CFR.

State-wise data showing distribution and rejection of claims under FRA as on 31.01.2012
(Table source: Ministry of Tribal Affairs)

Claim % claims
STATE CLAIM TITLE CLAIMS
disposed of / rejected w.r.t.
RECEIVED % of received DISTRIBUTED REJECTED claims
claims disposed off
Andhra 181,508 173,976 98,049 75,927 43.6%
Pradesh 4062 95.85% 96,675
177,446 1,374
Assam 155,011 58,802 58,802 NA/NR -
148,965 37.93% 57,325
6,046 1477

Bihar 8,022 4,336 121 4215 97.2%

NA/NR 54.05% 121
8,022 0
Chhattisgarh 890,240 884,808 423,218 461,950 52.20%
858,682 99.39% 401,251
31,558 21,967

19
Forest Right Act : A decay Old but Implementation remains incomplete, available at :
https://india.mongabay.com/2018/12/forest-rights-act-a-decade-old-but-implementation-remains-incomplete/,
(accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 18

Gujarat 190,056 156,992 94,989 61,933 39.44 %

182,869 82.57% 91,102
7,187 3,887

Himachal 2,903 211 164 47 22.27%

Pradesh 2,642 7.27% 129
261 35
Jharkhand 110756 90,077 61,970 28,107 31.20%
107,032 81.33% 59,866
3724 2,104
Karnataka 281,349 197,029 16,073 180,956 91.84%
5,903 70.03% 14,667
275,446 1,406
Kerala 44,343 38,401 26,572 11,829 30.80%
43,331 86.60% 26,398
1,012 174
Madhya 627,453 616,771 258,004 358,767 58.16%
Pradesh 585,266 98.30% 230,028
42,187 27,976
Maharashtra 374,716 217,641 172,116 45,525 20.91%
362,679 58.08% 165,032
12,037 7,084
Odisha 638,325 600,183 448,178 152,005 25.32%
623,252 94.02% 441,529
15,073 6,649
Rajasthan 79,600 77,574 44,424 33,150 42.73%
77,906 97.45% 44,071
1,694 353
Tamil Nadu 34,837 18,087 8,594 9,493 52.48%
33,755 51.92% 8,144
1,082 450
Uttar Pradesh 93,639 93,665 18,825 74,840 79.90%
92,570 99.93% 17,964
1,162 861

Uttarakhand 6,665 6,665 157 6,508 97.64%

3,574 100.00% 156
3,091 1

The above analysis of the data set on the status of FRA implementation in 2008–20 reveals that
its enforcement has been very uneven across the country. Field observations from Odisha,
Jharkhand, and Maharashtra in 2014–20 also reveal serious concerns at the implementation level,
some of which are outlined below.20

20
Government of India Ministry of Tribal Affair, available at : https://tribal.nic.in/downloads/FRA/MPR/2020/(A)
%20-%20MPR%20Dec%202020.pdf, (accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 19

Poor Quality of Recognised Claims

The extent of forest lands on which IFR and CFR claims are recognized is lower than forest
lands on which IFR and CFR claims are made. For example, the information obtained from 37
IFR title holders from two villages – Tilher and Batane of Vasai taluk, Palghar district,
Maharashtra – suggests that the average IFR area claimed by forest dwellers was 3.25 acres, but
the average recognised forest land area was only 1.1 acres. Also, all 37 claimants received titles
without maps of their recognised forest land. In the claim recognition process, surveys to update
forest land records either were not undertaken or completed, and forest maps were not used to
establish recognised boundaries on the ground. Therefore, in several cases, the titles of
recognised forest lands do not match their actual positions. Finally, the focus is on the number of
titles and not on their quality, both in terms of the accuracy of the recognised area (compared to
the claimed area) and whether it has been physically demarcated. For example, in Dhamtari
district in Chhattisgarh, 1,378 CFR claims were recognised, but the district has only 653 villages.
There are multiple CFR titles recognised for several villages in this district. Thus, multiple CFR
titles are recognised for a given village, which questions the legitimacy of the titles.21

Misinterpretation and Violation of FRA Provisions

Since 2008, the MoTA has issued several orders and notifications to clarify procedures for the
verification and recognition of forest rights claims. Despite these regular clarifications,
government officers, particularly SDLC and DLC members, misinterpret and violate FRA
provisions. For example, a letter dated March 27, 2017 from the National Tiger Conservation
Authority announced to the chief wildlife wardens of all States that in the absence of guidelines
on notifying critical wildlife habitats, no forest rights were to be conferred in critical tiger
habitats. This is a clear violation of Section 2(a) of the FRA, which states that forest-dwelling
communities are entitled to claim their customary and traditional rights over forest lands
irrespective of the forest’s classification. Furthermore, the SDLC and DLC arbitrarily reject
forest rights claims without any communication to the claimants. For example, Sundargarh
district in Odisha had recognised 555 IFR claims of other traditional forest dwellers (OTFD) up
to June 30, 2018. But on March 31, 2019, the district administration arbitrarily rejected all these

21
Issues in implementation of Forest Right Act, 2006 http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/Indian
%20Forest%20Rights%20Act%202006.pdf, (accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 20

claims without giving the title holders a fair opportunity to state their case. 22 Titles are randomly
issued in the name of JFM committees or panchayat bodies. For example, verification of CFR
titles issued to 10 villages in Deori taluk of Gondia district of Maharashtra showed that the DLC
had issued titles in the name of the panchayat instead of the gram sabha. Finally, an analysis of
recognised IFR and CFR claims reveals that only a minuscule number of OTFD claims have
been recognised. For example, Odisha recognised only 73 OTFD claims against the 31,690
submitted claims, whereas the total number of recognised IFR claims for Scheduled Tribes
stands at 437,718 against 621,195 submitted claims.

Lack of Coordination among Line Departments

Three key departments of the State Government – namely, the Revenue, Forest, and Tribal
Departments – are crucial to the verification and recognition of forest rights claims. The
Department of Tribal Welfare is the nodal agency for enforcement of the FRA at the State level
and must coordinate with the Revenue and Forest Departments at the SDLC and DLC levels to
facilitate the process of claim recognition. However, DLC officers from Kolhapur district of
Maharashtra and Godda district of Jharkhand revealed that between January 2019 and August
2020, the DLC of Kolhapur had met only twice, whereas the DLC of Godda district had never
met. Between January 2018 and August 2019, residents of Sundarpahari block in Godda
submitted a total of 25 CFR claims through a local organisation, Badlao Foundation, but not a
single claim has been recognised due to the DLC’s lack of interest and failure to hold
meetings. Residents of villages in Odisha, Maharashtra, and Jharkhand revealed that SDLC
officers, especially those in the Forest Department, do not share land records and maps with
them. The SDLC has also not taken any active interest in creating awareness about FRA
procedures and rules, or in providing relevant documents and forms to residents so they can
submit their claims.

Lack of Institutional Support in the Post-Claim Recognition Process

When recognising IFR and CFR claims over forest land, the Revenue and Forest Departments
have the responsibility of preparing maps of the forest land and of updating revenue and forest
records within the duration specified under relevant State laws or within three months, whichever
22
The research officer of TISS gathered this information during her fieldwork in Sundargarh district between
September 2018 and April 2019
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 21

is shorter.23 During discussions with 37 IFR title holders from two Maharashtra villages –
Ambesari and Jamshet of Dahanu taluk, Palghar district – we did not find any IFR title holder
who had received a final map of the recognised forest land, or a mention of the recognised land
in the village revenue record. Section 16 of the FRA Rules, 2012 specifies that the State
Government must deliver all government schemes, including those relating to land improvement,
land productivity, basic amenities, and other livelihood measures, to claimants and communities
whose rights have been recognised and vested under the Act. However, a study of 33 villages
from three States – Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand – reveals that institutional support in the
post-recognition phase has been almost non-existent (Sahu et al. 2017). The IFR and CFR title
holders are left to improve their productivity and livelihoods and protect the forest through their
own initiatives.24
Lack of Political Will
Political parties across the spectrum have shown little interest in supporting and strengthening
enforcement of the FRA – any enthusiasm is limited to brief periods preceding an election. This
was seen in the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government’s interest in the FRA during
the pre- and post-election phases of 2019. Before the election, following the Supreme Court’s
interim order of February 13, 2019 to evict forest dwellers whose claims were rejected, the
government intervened by issuing a stay order on their eviction. However, after winning the
election, between May 2019 and August 2020, the BJP has shown no interest in addressing
pending forest rights claims. The MoTA data set reveals that out of 201,829 pending IFR claims,
only 19,232 have been recognised. The status of CFR recognition is also poor – out of 29,122
pending CFR claims, only 224 had been recognised during the same period. The performance of
the Congress-ruled state of Rajasthan is equally alarming. Between November 2018 and March
2020, the State Government did not recognise a single IFR or CFR claim. Recognition of forest
rights claims in the Left-ruled state of Kerala is also not high. Between May 2018 and March
2020, it recognised 1,657 IFR claims, among 31,536 pending claims. Over the last 13 years, both

23
For more details, see the MoTA’s Circular on Record of Rights, dated March 3, 2014, F. No. 23011/06/2014-FRA,
Government of India.
24
Implementation of Forest Right Act, available at : https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-
editorials/implementing-forest-rights, (accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 22

the Central and State Governments, ruled by various political parties, have attempted several
times to dilute the provisions of the FRA.25

JUDGEMENTS

Recently, Supreme Court in Wildlife first vs. Moefcc 26has ordered eviction of encroachers on
forest land, in which majority of tribal and forest dwellers were also ordered to be evicted. This
order invited challenges from various quarters as in many cases request was cancelled on non-
availability of documents by district level committee under the act. Therefore, court agreed to

25
Reason for Failure of Forest Right Act, 2006, available at: https://www.oxfamindia.org/blog/forest-rights-act ,
(accessed on : 07 June, 2021)
26
Writ Petition No. 109/2008]
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 23

review its judgment and give time of 4 months to state governments to complete the process
again.27
Eviction of Forest Dwellers
Wildlife First v. Ministry of Forest and Environment

PARTIES INVOLVED LAWYERS

Petitioner :
Petitioner :
Ajit Kumar Sinha; Shyam Divan
Wildlife First; Wildlife Trust of India; Nature
Respondent :
Conservation Society; Tiger Research and
ASG Tushar Mehta
Conservation Trust
Respondent :
Ministry of Forest and Environment; Ministry
of Tribal Affairs;

India’s pinnacle court on 13 February 2019 coordinated governments in 21 States specifically by

name to start expulsions on the off chance that their application has been dismissed under Forest
Rights Act (FRA), 2006, immediately and reported at the very latest July 12. The explanation
expressed by the pinnacle court was that the forestland inhabitants don’t have the necessary
paperwork which identifies them as woods occupants under the previously mentioned law.
Under the demonstration, forest tenants needed to document a case with state governments to
safeguard privilege to their territories. But it is important to understand here that people are
living here for more than 100 years and suddenly the authorities are asking them for proper
documentation for showing entitlement of the land.

The issue here emerges is that the procedure followed for dismissing the application is
completely imperfect and isn’t followed as coordinated under the demonstration. Cases are being
dismissed without allocating reasons, or dependent on the wrong translation of the Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD) definition and the ‘reliance’ provision, or basically for the
absence of proof or ‘nonappearance of GPS overview’. The dismissals are not being imparted to
the petitioners, and their entitlement to offer isn’t being disclosed to them nor its activity
encouraged. The mere dismissal of cases by the state doesn’t indicate the wrongdoing of
27
Recognition of Forest Right Act, 2006, available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Scheduled_Tribes_and_Other_Traditional_Forest_Dwellers_(Recognition_of_Fo
rest_Rights)_Act,_2006, (accessed on : 08 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 24

“infringement or encroachment” the sheer volume of rejections ought to rather set alerts ringing
in the court of procedural improprieties.

This isn’t the first occasion when these innate networks are abused. In 2014, around 450 families
from indigenous Baiga and Gond people group were ousted to secure tigers in the Kanha Tiger
Reserve. The affected families didn’t get pay and recovery benefits as guaranteed by the
administration.

In this manner seeing the previous history it very surely is known that these communities are not
comprehended as defenders of the woodland yet encroacher or destroyers of the forest. The
judgment passed had gotten extreme criticism from the activists, residents and all the innate
tribal since they are taking away their lives and livelihood. They are ones who have been
dependent upon most extreme foul play and social prohibition and its relentlessness.

WHAT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED?

In this judgememnt what is crucial to realise is that the forest right act,2006 is backed by the
constitution by all means.

1) Article 14: Right to Equality.

2) Article 15(4): Special arrangements for the development of others in backward classes (it
incorporates the ST people group).

 3) Article 19(5): While the privileges of free development and living arrangement all through
the region of India and of obtaining an aura of property are guaranteed to every occupant, special
limitations might be forced by the state for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe

 4) Article 21: Right to Life. Thus, their privileges are monitored well inside the constitution
theoretically, however, actually, this isn’t the situation. The apex court has abused their
entitlement to life and this ousting is against the FRA.

The other factor that was overlooked is that the Forest Rights Act says that nobody ought to be
expelled while the procedure of identifying their entitlement is in progress. And while the
process of validation of process is happening the court has ordered their removal. Secondly,
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 25

according to the act Gram sabha is supreme and they have the power to reject or accept but in
this case they have failed and misused their powers against the conservers of the forest.

Now the tribal community being called a destroyer is really naive on the court. The most
significant key right appears to be obtrusively abused for their situation and nobody is interested
in this matter! On the off chance that tribal are “pulverizing” the earth at that point are authorities
attempting to state that huge mining ventures taken over by the partnerships are mending the
earth?! Hasdeo Arand (where a fake Gram Sabha was organised to get the permission)28.

The opportunity has already belated, respective governments and conservation-based

organisations should duly start acknowledging the critical role the forest dwellers play in
preservation, conservation and shielding the wealth of natural biodiversity. The low-carbon-
impression way of life of the innate individuals has monitored the worldwide condition for
centuries and their astuteness and feasible techniques ought to be perceived, embraced and
elevated to successfully alleviate environmental change. At the point when customary
communities are given full legitimate rights to their territory, they ensure nature effectively and
efficiently.

Take, for instance, the tribal community drove blackbuck protection activity in Ganjam region of
Odisha. From a small populace of around 573 of every 1990, the census of 2018 uncovered an
expected 4,044 blackbuck in the region, because of the protection endeavors of the neighborhood
tribal forest dwellers29.

Another instance is the Biligirirangana Hills Tiger Reserve in south India where the Soliga tribal
communities were allowed to stay. It was reported that there has been an increase in the number
of tiger populations far above the national average30.

The tribal community are better at taking care of their forest than any other person. They also
represent one of our best hopes for doing so in the future as they depend on forest and vice versa.
28
Centre’s nod for mining in 170,000 hectares of forest in Chhattisgarh. (2019, March 21). Available at :
https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/centre-s-nod-for-mining-in-170khectares-of-forest/story-
F60Pb7W8ybegHntaQ9YBwK.html, , (accessed on : 08 June, 2021)
29
Pronking in Ganjam. (n.d.). Retrieved June 08, 2021, from https://www.downtoearth.org.in/blog/wildlife-
biodiversity/pronking-in-ganjam-61351
30
How an indigenous tribe in K’taka’s tiger reserve won battle over forest rights. Retrieved June
08,2021,from,https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/how-indigenous-tribe-k-taka-s-tiger-reserve-won-battle-
over-forest-rights-89255
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 26

WAY FORWARD:

1. The presence of Article 19 (5) within the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution,
which specifically enjoins the state to create laws “for the security of the interests of any
Scheduled Tribe”, is vital.

2. How has the Supreme Court requested the removal in complete neglect of this core and
express fundamental right security to Adivasis (as unmistakable from legal/statutory security),
which secures them from a extend of state and non-state interruptions in Scheduled Regions as
well as from the perpetual danger of removal from their homelands.

3. It is the commitment of the Supreme Court to ensure the Scheduled Tribes and other
powerless communities from the grave harms of violent dispossession. Instead of order for
removal, there’s a need for satisfactory documentation and wrangles about this issue so that
forest dwellers won’t endure because of the inefficiencies of administration.

Reading this decision in the case of Wildlife First v. Ministry of Forest and
Environment31 passed by our apex court it can be understood that the path for the forest dwellers
is full of hindrances  and there is no ray of hope for them. People who are protecting the flora
and fauna are called the destroyer but it is important to consider that they sustain on forest, they
pray to the forest. These people have been living here for generations without anyone
interrupting them and now out of nowhere they are asked for papers. This shows that the act
made has fallen into the trap of politics. The court allowing industries to cut down forest is
considered reasonable while a tribal living is not. The act was brought to respect and recognise
forest dwellers rights but the forest rights act, 2006 has failed miserably and is nowhere fulfilling
its purpose. It won’t be shocking when our forest will be cut down and all the animals will be
killed because as individuals we are turning inhuman. The recent act of killing the elephant
shows how we are treating the beautiful fauna and flora. It is crucial for India to protect rights of
forest dwellers as well as conserve forest because this will only help us achieve the goal stated in
the Paris climate treaty which aims to decrease 2 degree temperature globally. Thus, it is vital for
our country to realize the importance of the forest dwellers and conserving our forest via

31
Supreme Court Observer – Forest Dwellers Eviction. (n.d.). Retrieved June 08, 2021, from
https://www.scobserver.in/court-case/eviction-of-forest-dwellers
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 27

protecting rights of the forest dwellers and give them what they deserve for the environment
friendly advancement of the country.32

CONCLUSION

The promise of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) to legalize tenure rights over forest land is a
significant policy move to address the historical injustice meted out to millions of forest dwellers
in the country. Though the potential of the Act is yet to be fully harnessed, preliminary research
and prima facie evidence suggest that the FRA has improved the socio-economic conditions of
local communities around forests. There is an urgent need to employ concerted strategies to scale
up the implementation of the FRA. Some immediate tasks that relevant agencies must implement
32
“The Supreme Court is assessing the constitutional validity of the Forest Rights Act 2006”, available at :
https://legalaiddnlu.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/wildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment/, (accessed on
: 08 June, 2021)
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 28

include evolving a participatory institutional mechanism to review illegally and arbitrarily

rejected claims, fast-tracking pending claims, preparing records of rights for recognised claims as
per State forest and revenue laws, integrating line department schemes with forest rights holders,
deregulating minor forest product rules at the State level, facilitating the sale of minor forest
products harvested by forest dwellers, and providing institutional and technical support to
community members to prepare and manage recognised customary and traditional forest areas.
These efforts will substantially contribute to not only securing tenure rights but also to enhancing
the livelihood of forest dwellers and sustainable use and management of forest resources.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 blog.ipleaders.in/all-about-the-forest-rights-act-in-india/
 tribal.nic.in/FRA.aspx
 www.scobserver.in/beyond-the-court/forest-rights-act-2006-5-must-reads
 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
The_Scheduled_Tribes_and_Other_Traditional_Forest_Dwellers_(Recognition_of_Fores
t_Rights)_Act,_2006
 E n v i r o n m e n t a l L a w | 29

 legalaiddnlu.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/wildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-
environment/
 www.insightsonindia.com/2019/02/11/forest-rights-act/
 www.livemint.com/opinion/online-views/opinion-to-maintain-sustainability-gram-
sabhas-have-to-be-empowered-
 www.ras.org.in/the_genesis_process_and_implications_of_the_forest_rights_act_
 www.conservationindia.org/resources/facts-about-the-forests-rights-act
 india.mongabay.com/2018/12/forest-rights-act-a-decade-old-but-implementation-
remains-incomplete/
 www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/
 www.oxfamindia.org/blog/forest-rights-act