A group of former civil servants, organised as the Constitutional Conduct Group, has issued an open letter to the Government of India expressing concern over the erosion of rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers in Odisha. The group, which describes itself as having no political affiliation, said Odisha has the fourth largest forest cover in India and the third largest Scheduled Tribe population, and alleged that large tracts of tribal-inhabited forests are being surrendered to mining and industrial projects, reducing both the forests and the communities dependent on them to distress.
The letter focuses on Sijimali in Rayagada district, where the group said it had previously written on 19 April 2026 about alleged violations of the 2013 Supreme Court judgment in the Niyamgiri case concerning the acquisition of tribal homelands and forest lands, including allegations that Gram Sabha resolutions on consent were falsified. It said there had been no positive consideration of those issues and that legal protection for tribal people in the region had further deteriorated.
The group stated that Lada Sikaka, a Dongria Kandha leader who has been democratically and peacefully expressing concerns about mining companies entering tribal lands, was arrested on 10 September 2026 and reportedly charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It added that other tribal leaders, including Lingaraj Azad and Hiramaal Naik, and scores of other tribal inhabitants demanding protection of their jal, jungle and zameen, were also arrested and listed as accused in police records.
Recalling their experience as former civil servants, the signatories said they were familiar with investment proposals seeking forest lands that are also tribal homelands, and with gaps between promises made and kept. While conceding that not all industrial or mining proposals can or should be opposed, they stressed that the correct forum for deciding such matters is an open and informed Gram Sabha, which they described as the essence of the Niyamgiri judgment.
The letter said the practice of consulting the concerned Gram Sabha before the government agreed to divert forest land for industry, mining or other purposes prevailed until 2022. Under the Forest (Conservation) Rules of 2017, the District Collector was required to obtain consent of each Gram Sabha with jurisdiction over the forest land in a diversion proposal, making Gram Sabha consent essential before the central government considered the proposal. This was amended in the 2022 FC Rules, which provide that the central government first grants approval and only thereafter requires the state government to de-reserve or divert forest land and accommodate forest rights, with no mention of the Gram Sabha. The group said the rights of forest dwellers, both Scheduled Tribes and others, have been treated as secondary and given short shrift.
The group argued that the 2022 Forest (Conservation) Rules violate the Forest Rights Act, whose preamble states that it was enacted to address the long-standing insecurity of tenurial and access rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, including those forced to relocate due to state development interventions. It said the Act details the important role of the Gram Sabha in granting individual and community forest rights, and that ignoring Gram Sabha consultation before approval of forest diversion is not only irregular but illegal, since rules cannot supplant an Act and privately owned forest lands cannot be given away without consultation with their owners or the Gram Sabha representing them.
The letter expressed surprise at official communication dated 31 August 2026 from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs to the NHPC desk of the Ministry of Power, stating there is no provision to obtain Gram Sabha consent under the Forest Rights Act before granting clearance for diversion of forest lands. It said that instead of defending the claims of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers under the Act that the ministry itself had piloted through Parliament, and instead of interpreting the law rationally, the ministry made a facile and superficial statement.
A rational interpretation, the group said, would recognise that existing forest rights not recorded in land documents were duly recognised through a detailed process under the 2006 Act, in which the Gram Sabha was a crucial institution, and that rights so recognised cannot be taken away by another institution. Essentially, only the Gram Sabha can decide such matters, it said.
The group noted with serious concern that these policy shifts are neither legally sound nor serve the livelihood and wellbeing of tribal and other forest dwelling people or the environment. It reminded the government that in this Super El Nino year there are three important global frameworks for 2015 to 2030 requiring environmental care: the Sustainable Development Goals, the COP 26 Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, and said there is an urgent need to restore the protective framework for the environment with people's participation.
The letter urged the government to review the rules relating to diversion of forest land and ensure the primacy of the Gram Sabha in protecting the rights of forest dwellers, to ensure that persons democratically and peacefully advocating the rights of people over land, water and forests are not arrested and jailed, to ensure that cases of those already arrested are reviewed at the earliest for grant of bail, and to start a process of consultation and open dialogue rather than persisting with a coercive approach.
The letter, signed by the Constitutional Conduct Group with the motto Satyameva Jayate, carries a list of 59 signatories, mostly retired officers of the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, Indian Forest Service, Indian Foreign Service and other central services, including former secretaries to the Government of India and former chief secretaries of several states.
Comments