A public hearing organised by the Lok Swashasan Andolan in Bhopal has highlighted widespread violations of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) in Madhya Pradesh, with tribal and other forest-dependent communities reporting forced evictions, demolition of homes, destruction of crops, arbitrary rejection of claims and displacement in the name of forest conservation and development projects.
Held at Gandhi Bhavan, the one-day public hearing brought together more than 500 representatives of tribal and forest-dependent communities from around 35 districts of the state. Participants presented testimonies and supporting evidence concerning violations of their forest rights and problems in implementing the law.
A five-member jury heard the testimonies. It comprised retired Supreme Court Justice A.K. Patnaik, retired Tata Institute of Social Sciences professor Virginius Xaxa, former Madhya Pradesh Chief Secretary Sharad Chandra Behar, Maharashtra-based poet and social activist Kusum Alam, and Vineet Tiwari, poet, journalist, playwright and editor of the progressive magazine *Vasudha*, who is also the national secretary of the Progressive Writers' Association.
The hearing was organised in the context of the 20th anniversary of the Forest Rights Act, enacted by Parliament in 2006 following prolonged struggles by tribal and forest-dependent communities. The legislation was intended to address historical injustices suffered by these communities during the colonial and post-Independence periods by recognising their rights over forest land and resources.
The Act also sought to establish democratic governance of forests by transferring authority over forest management, conservation, wildlife and biodiversity to village-level Gram Sabhas and empowering communities recognised as rights holders.
However, according to the press release issued by the organisers, the testimonies presented at the hearing contradicted official claims about the implementation of the legislation. Despite Madhya Pradesh having the largest forest area among Indian states and a substantial tribal population, the law has not been properly implemented over the past two decades.
The participants alleged that the administrative machinery, particularly the Forest Department, had consistently obstructed the implementation of the Act. Reports of forced evictions, demolition of houses, burning of crops, spraying of pesticides on agricultural fields and filing of allegedly false cases against forest-dependent communities emerged from almost every district.
Even people who had received titles recognising their forest rights were reportedly being served eviction notices by the Forest Department. Participants said that officials often refused to comply with the provisions of the Act despite villagers repeatedly invoking their legal rights.
Sahariya tribal representatives from the Gwalior-Chambal region said that the institutional framework required to implement the Forest Rights Act had remained absent or non-functional for nearly 20 years. They alleged that Gram Sabhas had been restricted to the Panchayat level and that Forest Rights Committees were constituted by Panchayats or government officials rather than through the prescribed community-based process.
They further alleged that officials ranging from Patwaris to Forest Department beat guards were included in these committees, while information about their functioning was unavailable even at the subdivision level. Meetings of subdivision-level committees were also reportedly irregular. The Sahariya community said that it had received neither adequate information nor training and documentation support to exercise its rights.
The hearing also highlighted serious irregularities in the processing of individual forest rights claims. A large number of applications reportedly remained pending, while others were rejected without explanations. Claimants were allegedly neither given written notices nor provided opportunities to present their cases.
According to the participants, claims were being rejected on grounds such as satellite imagery, absence of applicants' names in encroachment lists, lack of receipts for fines and the classification of land as disputed between the Revenue and Forest Departments.
The Van Mitra Portal, introduced by the state government in 2019 with the stated objective of improving transparency and accountability in the processing of claims, was also criticised. Participants alleged that the portal had instead become a mechanism for rejecting applications.
They said that its operation was largely in the hands of kiosk operators and Panchayat secretaries, replacing the Gram Sabha-based democratic process with a mechanical administrative system. Claimants were reportedly unable to check the status of their applications independently, while technical errors and procedural deficiencies were resulting in the repeated rejection of claims that had previously been rejected.
Representatives from Dindori district raised concerns about the conversion of forest villages into revenue villages. They alleged that the process was being conducted through a top-down administrative mechanism using satellite imagery, bypassing Gram Sabhas. In several cases, forest villages had reportedly been demarcated incorrectly, with smaller areas included in the process. Villagers were said to have learnt about the conversion through news reports rather than consultations with their Gram Sabhas.
The hearing also drew attention to the absence of progress in recognising habitat rights of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). Madhya Pradesh has three such communities — the Baiga, Sahariya and Bharia — but the organisers said that the process of recognising their habitat rights remained largely non-existent despite the provisions of the Act.
The implementation of Community Forest Resource Rights, which empower Gram Sabhas to protect, manage and conserve community forest resources, was described as particularly problematic. Participants said that subdivision and district-level committees were not approving claims, while the Forest Department was creating obstacles.
The organisers specifically referred to a recent letter issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), Bhopal, which they alleged restricted and misinterpreted Community Forest Resource Rights despite the department lacking the authority to do so.
The public hearing also examined the impact of expanding protected areas, including tiger reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, conservation reserves and corridors. Participants argued that conservation policies based on an exclusionary or fortress model were resulting in the displacement and criminalisation of forest-dependent communities.
Residents from Ratapani, Panna, Durgawati, Kanha, Harda, Satpura, Hoshangabad and the Kalda mountain region, among other areas, described their experiences of displacement in the name of wildlife conservation. They maintained that communities that had coexisted with wildlife for generations were being deprived of their rights, even though the Wildlife Protection Act also provides for the recognition of rights.
The testimonies further raised questions about the relationship between conservation policies and development projects. While the state government receives substantial funding and revenue in the name of conservation, participants alleged that forests were being cleared on a large scale for infrastructure and development projects, causing pollution of air and water resources.
Concerns were presented regarding projects on the Ken-Betwa river system in Panna, dams on the Narmada in the Mahakoshal region and nuclear projects. The testimonies covered alleged violations of forest rights, human rights, Gram Sabha consent and compensation provisions, besides the exploitation of forest resources and the use of armed forces in project-affected areas.
The organisers also alleged that compensatory afforestation programmes were resulting in further dispossession of forest-dependent communities. In Gwalior, Seoni, Vidisha, Singrauli, Mahakoshal, Malwa, Nimar and Bundelkhand, activities such as digging pits, erecting fences and planting trees were reportedly being undertaken on individual and community forest land.
These interventions, participants said, were depriving villagers of access to community resources and agricultural land.
The press release argued that the Forest Rights Act was increasingly being reduced from a legislation recognising community governance and legal rights to a government beneficiary-oriented scheme. It cited the Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan (DA-JGUA), alleging that funds allocated in the name of forest rights were accompanied by greater intervention by the Forest Department and technology agencies in matters that should be governed by the provisions of the Act.
The organisers identified political and administrative apathy as major reasons for the failure to implement the legislation. They also alleged that the Forest Department had a vested interest in retaining control over forest resources and land, while corporate interests in these resources further complicated the implementation of community rights.
The press release questioned the contrast between the government's celebration of Janjatiya Gaurav Diwas on November 15 and the continuing denial of rights to Adivasi communities. It alleged that while the government commemorated tribal contributions, its administrative machinery continued to evict, displace, criminalise and dispossess forest-dependent communities.
Twenty years after the enactment of the Forest Rights Act, the organisers argued, forests and forest areas remained governed by a colonial and capital-centric system rather than the democratic, Gram Sabha-based framework envisaged by the legislation.
Comments