Skip to main content

Forest rights: Supreme Court Feb 28 stay temporary, BJP govts "supporting" corporates

Counterview Desk
On February 28, the Supreme Court stayed its two-weeks-old order directing 21 states to evict 11.8 lakh illegal forest dwellers whose claims over the forest land have been rejected by the authorities, but civil society organizations believe it is a temporary reprieve, as state governments have been asked to file affidavits giving details about process adopted in rejecting the claims.
Insisting that it is a temporary stay, as the apex court posted the matter for further hearing on July 10, the New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI) has demanded that the Government of India and state government should take “immediate” steps to stop to all evictions in forest areas and dilutions of the clauses of the Forest Rights Act by the governments, even as reviewing of all the rejected claims for forest rights under the FRA within three months.

NTUI note by its general secretary Gautam Mody:

On February 13, 2019, the Supreme Court of India (SC) in a case filed by some retired forest officials, along with four ‘wild life conservation’ organisations – the Wildlife Trust of India, the Nature Conservation Society, the Tiger Research and Conservation Trust and the Bombay Natural History Society – challenged the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), ordered 21 state governments to evict all claimants whose claims have been rejected.
This order could be used to evict and displace over 19 lakh households of forest people. The Wildlife Trust of India has been involved in buying land used for agriculture to establish an elephant corridor with the support of the Forest Department in Karnataka thereby displacing families from lands including non-forest lands to create passage for animals.
They have been involved in similar efforts in Kerala, Meghalaya and in Assam. The BJP government at the centre had absented itself from the proceedings and in so doing affirmed its support for the conservationist lobby and its opposition to the land rights of forest dwellers.
On February 28, the SC stayed this order and asked state governments to report on how claims were processed. 20.5 lakh claims have been rejected, according to state government affidavits. The numbers are disputed, not indicative of compliance with appellate procedures and have been criticized by numerous organisations including the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.
The FRA recognizes the role of forest dwellers in “…conservation of biodiversity and maintenance of ecological balance and thereby strengthening the conservation regime of the forests while ensuring livelihood and food security of the forest dwelling” people while the present policy thrust is to pitch them against the cause of wildlife protection.
Parallel dilution of rights
The BJP government has consistently diluted the FRA through its tenure. The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Amendment) Ordinance, 2014 and the National Forest Policy, 2018 both tried to subvert the role of the Gram Sabha under the FRA while amendments to the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, the Compensatory Afforestation Fund Act and a host of amendments to the Rules to FRA all undermine FRA.
State governments have also resorted to undermining the FRA by invoking the Indian Forest Act 1927. States have also framed legislation and rules such as the Maharashtra Village Forest Rules, 2014 and Protected Forest Rules in Madhya Pradesh and the amendments to the Chotanagpur Tenancy Acts and Santhal Pargana Tenancy Acts in Jharkhand.
The Forest Department has used the claim recognition requirements and procedure required under the FRA to deny or delay claims while not allowing the process of appeals to proceed. To worsen the situation, forest department officials and police have continue to harass claimants; burn down forest villages, foist false cases on people living traditionally in the forests and resorting to violence against them.
Why are the claims rejected?
The rejection of the claims that has continued across the country is rooted in the issue of control over the natural resources: the FRA was a legislative attempt to ensure collective ownership of the forest dwellers over the forests and its minor produce while the Forest Department, created under colonial rule, was never willing to give up their control over the forests.
There is both financial interest in this and this is also seen as a necessity to establish control over the people in order natural resources at the disposal of capital. This conflict has existed despite the law and hence its implementation by the forest department has been dismal.
In making the forest department the implementing agency, there is an inherent conflict of interest. Even according to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, most state governments have attributed the high rate of rejection of forest rights claims largely to duplication of claims -- either by one forest dweller making multiple claims or persons from the same family making separate claims. This duplication obviously occurs due to the huge delays in processing these claims.
Over 45% of forest rights claims countrywide are rejected. The reasons for rejection are not cited and hence it also becomes impossible to appeal against it. The people living in the forests – mostly Adivasis – are the most vulnerable people of this country, expecting them to have the resources to pursue the appeal process where the forest department challenging the claim is on the body of appeal is extreme.
The February 28 stay order is only a temporary relief – the entire parallel policy effort of the BJP government both at the centre and in the states to dismantle the rights under the FRA continues undeterred. This dilution is necessary to ensure access of big corporations to the natural resources, especially mines in these forest areas.
The forest people residing in these areas across the country have waged a continuous struggle against commercial exploitation of the forests. It is they who protect the forests as recognized by the FRA and hence the attack on them and the law that protects them.
The NTUI stands with the forest working people in our collective struggle for rights to livelihood and in protecting our natural resources and our environment. We demand:
  • An immediate stop to all evictions in forest areas
  • An immediate stop to the dilution of the clauses of the Forest Rights Act by the central government and state governments
  • Review of all rejected claims for forest rights under the FRA within three months
  • A time-bound processing of claims under the FRA
  • Removal of the Forest Department from the Appellate body for review of claims: government to be represented only by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs along with representatives of the Gram Sabha.

Comments

TRENDING

Gram sabha as reformer: Mandla’s quiet challenge to the liquor economy

By Raj Kumar Sinha*  This year, the Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj is organising a two-day PESA Mahotsav in Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, on 23–24 December 2025. The event marks the passage of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), enacted by Parliament on 24 December 1996 to establish self-governance in Fifth Schedule areas. Scheduled Areas are those notified by the President of India under Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides for a distinct framework of governance recognising the autonomy of tribal regions. At present, Fifth Schedule areas exist in ten states: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The PESA Act, 1996 empowers Gram Sabhas—the village assemblies—as the foundation of self-rule in these areas. Among the many powers devolved to them is the authority to take decisions on local matters, including the regulation...

MG-NREGA: A global model still waiting to be fully implemented

By Bharat Dogra  When the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG-NREGA) was introduced in India nearly two decades ago, it drew worldwide attention. The reason was evident. At a time when states across much of the world were retreating from responsibility for livelihoods and welfare, the world’s second most populous country—with nearly two-thirds of its people living in rural or semi-rural areas—committed itself to guaranteeing 100 days of employment a year to its rural population.

Policy changes in rural employment scheme and the politics of nomenclature

By N.S. Venkataraman*  The Government of India has introduced a revised rural employment programme by fine-tuning the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA), which has been in operation for nearly two decades. The MGNREGA scheme guarantees 100 days of employment annually to rural households and has primarily benefited populations in rural areas. The revised programme has been named VB-G RAM–G (Viksit Bharat Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission – Gramin). The government has stated that the revised scheme incorporates several structural changes, including an increase in guaranteed employment from 100 to 125 days, modifications in the financing pattern, provisions to strengthen unemployment allowances, and penalties for delays in wage payments. Given the extent of these changes, the government has argued that a new name is required to distinguish the revised programme from the existing MGNREGA framework. As has been witnessed in recent years, the introdu...

Rollback of right to work? VB–GRAM G Bill 'dilutes' statutory employment guarantee

By A Representative   The Right to Food Campaign has strongly condemned the passage of the Viksit Bharat – Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) (VB–GRAM G) Bill, 2025, describing it as a major rollback of workers’ rights and a fundamental dilution of the statutory Right to Work guaranteed under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). In a statement, the Campaign termed the repeal of MGNREGA a “dark day for workers’ rights” and accused the government of converting a legally enforceable, demand-based employment guarantee into a centralised, discretionary welfare scheme.

A comrade in culture and controversy: Yao Wenyuan’s revolutionary legacy

By Harsh Thakor*  This year marks two important anniversaries in Chinese revolutionary history—the 20th death anniversary of Yao Wenyuan, and the 50th anniversary of his seminal essay "On the Social Basis of the Lin Biao Anti-Party Clique". These milestones invite reflection on the man whose pen ignited the first sparks of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution and whose sharp ideological interventions left an indelible imprint on the political and cultural landscape of socialist China.

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Making rigid distinctions between Indian and foreign 'historically untenable'

By A Representative   Oral historian, filmmaker and cultural conservationist Sohail Hashmi has said that everyday practices related to attire, food and architecture in India reflect long histories of interaction and adaptation rather than rigid or exclusionary ideas of identity. He was speaking at a webinar organised by the Indian History Forum (IHF).

India’s Halal economy 'faces an uncertain future' under the new food Bill

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  The proposed Food Safety and Standards (Amendment) Bill, 2025 marks a decisive shift in India’s food regulation landscape by seeking to place Halal certification exclusively under government control while criminalising all private Halal certification bodies. Although the Bill claims to promote “transparency” and “standardisation,” its structure and implications raise serious concerns about religious freedom, economic marginalisation, and the systematic dismantling of a long-established, Muslim-led Halal ecosystem in India.

From jobless to ‘job-loss’ growth: Experts critique gig economy and fintech risks

By A Representative   Leading economists and social activists gathered in the capital on Friday to launch the third edition of the State of Finance in India Report 2024-25 , issuing a stark warning that the rapid digitalization of the Indian economy is eroding welfare systems and entrenching "digital dystopia."