FOREST RIGHTS ACT- UNDERLYING HURDLES IN

ENSURING TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT

Minor Term Paper

Submitted by

SRUSTI MAHAKUD

2300397LLM

For the partial fulfilment of the

Degree of LL.M. in Environment and Natural Resource Law/ Infrastructure and

Business Law

Submitted to

Dr. Lakshmi Raghupathy

Environmental Law and Policy

Centre for Postgraduate Legal Studies

TERI School of Advanced Studies

December 2023
 DECLARATION

This is to certify that the research that forms the basis of this Term Paper titled “FOREST
RIGHTS ACT- UNDERLYING HURDLES IN ENSURING TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT”
is an original work carried out by me and has not been submitted anywhere else for the award of
any degree.

I certify that, to the best of my knowledge, all sources of information and data have been fully
acknowledged in the report.

Name: Srusti Mahakud

Registration No: 2300397LLM

Course Name: LL.M (Environment and Natural Resource Law/
Infrastructure and Business Law) TERI School of Advanced
Studies
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would first like to express my deepest gratitude to my Mentor Mrs. Lakshmi Madam who
assisted me in the completion of the term paper and guided me through the doubts that I had
during the course of research and drafting. Madam, your expertise and insightful feedback pushed
me to sharpen my thinking and brought my work to a higher level.

I would like to thank particularly my father Mr. Prasant Kumar Mahakud who has played an
integral role in structuring my research, stimulating discussions and his valuable guidance
throughout my life and studies.

I would also like to thank all the other teaching staff at TERI for always being there for students,
and the non-teaching staff for their excellent management throughout the course.

In addition, I would like to thank my sister Ishaa Mahakud who is student of M.Sc. ESRM (1st
Year) at TERI SAS for her wise counsel and sympathetic ear.

i
 Table of Contents

Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ iv
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 5
Objective and Scope of the present study…………………………………….………………6
Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………..7
Selection of the said topic with justification ............................................................................ 7
A brief overview of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 ...................................................................... 8
Loopholes in the implementation of FRA ................................................................................ 9
Role of Judiciary ....................................................................................................................... 10
Solutions/Recommendations .................................................................................................. 13
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 16
References ............................................................................................................................... 17

ii
 Abstract

FRA stipulates a bottom-up multi-tier system of local governance which entails many
administrative departments and multiple layers of official work. But there seems to be an
ideological divide between various departments leading to the complexities while ascertaining
legitimate interests in forest governance. This paper contends that genuine tribal development
is achievable and pragmatic only when it is inclusive. The imposition of development on tribal
communities has proven counterproductive; instead, it needs to be nurtured and promoted with
sensitivity to their unique cultural and environmental contexts. In conclusion, the paper offers
constructive suggestions for refining the existing legislation, advocating for amendments and
supplementary rules that can enhance its effectiveness. The proposed study seeks to investigate
the implications of FRA and issues plaguing its functioning, hence obstructing the legislation
from realizing its potential.

Keywords: Forest Rights Act, Tribal Development, Inclusive Development, Right-based

Development, Sustainable Development, Community Forest Rights, Tenurial Rights,
Ecological Balance, Indigenous Knowledge, Case Studies, Legislative Improvements.

iii
 List of Abbreviations-

o CFR- Community Forest Rights

o CNTA- Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act
o DLC- District Level Committee
o FRA- Forest Rights Act
o FCA- Forest Conservation Act
o FRC- Forest Rights Committee
o GIS- Geographical Information System
o GS- Gram Sabha
o IFA- Indian Forest Act
o IFR- Individual Forest Rights
o ILO- International Labour Organisation
o MoTA- Ministry of Tribal Affairs
o MOEFCC- Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change
o MVFR- Maharashtra Village Forest Rules
o OTFD- Other Traditional Forest Dwellers
o PESA- Panchayats (Extension to Schedules Areas) Act
o SC- Scheduled Caste
o ST- Scheduled Tribes
o SDLC- Sub Divisional Level Committee
o SLMC- State Level Monitoring Committee
o WLPA- Wildlife Protection Act.

iv
 Introduction

For a significant amount of time, India was a colony (largest and wealthiest) of the British.
They came as innocent traders but soon usurped the nation entirely, to satisfy their exploitative,
predatory and ruthless greed for its natural resources, forests being the primary one. The
European colonists unabashedly exploited the forest resources of the nation, to fuel their
industrial revolution at home. They achieved this by forming various institutions and stringent
legislations/policies to exercise control over these resources. It is a well-known factthat forests
are temples for the “forest dwelling communities who have evolved methods of conservation,
co-existence and complex patterns of livelihood”. Land and the attached resources are of utmost
importance to them for their survival. But the colonizers couldn’t careless. They came with the
agenda of “assertion of an imperial ambition that cared only to exploit the forest wealth of the
colony to sustain its wealth accumulation process at the costof the lives of the people and the
livelihoods of communities”. Consequently, they declared forests as the property of the State,
immediately abridging the rights of the forest-dwellers (adivasis) who have resided there since
centuries and have formed their own distinct culture, language and relationship with the forests.
This sudden move altered the “fundamental relationship that had governed forests” and
suddenly the forest-dwellers became an impediment in their vision of full control over the
forests. This radical step caused great distress to the forest-dwelling/indigenous/adivasi
community, and eventually led to increased friction against each other. Protests, rebellions
against the colonisers gained traction, which eventually made the colonisers realise that the
adivasi dominated areas are hard to “subdue” and the “freedom loving spirit of the Adivasis” is
tough to tackle hence, they formulated legislations under which these adivasi dominated
sensitive areas were given different status compared to others. The demarcation of those areas
ranged from non- regulated areas to agency areas to excluded/partially excluded areas to
currently scheduled areas under our constitution. But the demarcation was done only to the
extent at which the dominance of the British over the forest resources was not compromised.

As stated above, British formed various Machiavellian legislations/policies as well as

institutions, which enforced strict, coercive, centralised governance, to exercise control over
the forest resources of our country for commercial purposes. It started with the “imperial forest
department formed in 1864” and subsequently, by the Forest Act of 1865, the intent was given
a legislative colour. To further tighten their control, there were many subsequent legislations
enacted e.g., Indian Forest Act of 1878 followed by the Indian Forest Act of 1927. The
legislation had harsh penalties embedded within them for one simple reason, which was, to
deter forest dwelling communities from exercising their customary and traditional rights over
5
 the same forests where they resided for generations. The acts were exclusionary, totalitarian
and unjust to these communities whose customary rights and freedom over the use of forests
and its produce were heavily curtailed, leaving them with a miniscule claim over the produce.
This exploitative approach led to large scale oppression of forest dwelling communities along
with intense ecological devastation. Post their departure, in a newly independent India, not
much changed for many decades. The State’s monopoly over forests was still over-reaching
and the feudal, complex and biased bureaucratic forest regime was still in place. After the
British, it was the Indian forest administration that worked as the proxy for colonists. The
recognition of forest-dwellers rights was still not given as much importance.

But slowly, learning from our past legislative experiences, and further facilitated by growing
social unrest due to State’s centralist tendencies over forest governance, a renewed thrust was
provided, which translated into large scale mobilisation of the adivasi community and their
supporters. The government eventually recognised the distinct yet fragile identity of the
adivasi communities who were “facing disregard for their values and culture, breach of
protective legislations, serious material and social deprivation, and aggressive resource
alienation”. The country acknowledged their “methods of conservation, co-existence and
complex patterns of livelihood” which they have formed with the forests. All the efforts finally
led to the culmination of a radical piece of legislation called the Scheduled Tribes and Other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights Act) or FRA.

Objective and Scope of the present study

The primary objective of this study is to critically examine the impact and effectiveness of the
Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act,
2006, commonly referred to as the Forest Rights Act (FRA). The research aims to assess how the
introduction of novel concepts such as Community Forest Rights has influenced the landscape of
Indian jurisprudence and the lives of forest-dwelling communities. The study seeks to analyze
the Act's success in securing tenurial and access rights for forest dwellers while ensuring the
sustainable use, conservation, and ecological balance of forests.
Additionally, the research aims to evaluate the shortcomings of existing development schemes
and programs targeted at tribal populations. It seeks to shed light on the necessity of a more
inclusive approach to tribal development, arguing that development initiatives should be nurtured
rather than imposed. The study aims to provide insights into the complexities of tribal
development, emphasizing the need for sensitivity to cultural and environmental contexts.

6
 Methodology

The methodology involved in the proposed study would be a desk research. The researcher will
collect and assimilate data and literature from primary as well as secondary materials.
Exploring relevant case laws, legislations, governmental orders/rules/committee reports, as
well as using archival sources, academic literature, published articles, books and ethnographic
studies along with other relevant intellectual texts.

Selection of the said topic

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), officially known as the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006, has emerged as one of the most
contentious pieces of legislation in post-independence India. Arising from the grassroots
struggles of tribal (indigenous) communities and their advocates, the FRA has sparked intense
and sometimes violent debates among activists, academics, government officials, and various
stakeholders. Whether as part of coursework or a broader academic interest, delving into the
intricacies of the Forest Rights Act and related legislation allowed me to examine the intersection
of law, indigenous rights, and social dynamics. This paper aims to evaluate several aspects of the
FRA, including its implications for conservation, people's rights, and livelihoods. It also explores
the influences of different actors on the formation of the FRA, delving into the extent of
involvement of tribal peoples. Additionally, the study addresses the challenges and potential
prospects associated with the implementation of the FRA. The paper provides an overview of the
diverse dependencies that communities have on India's forests, traces the historical context of
forest and wildlife policies, and outlines the key provisions of the FRA, examining its evolution
from its initial draft as a Bill to its final enactment. The concluding section scrutinizes the effects
of the FRA on livelihoods and conservation efforts.

7
 A brief overview of the Forest Rights Act, 2006

FRA is an enabling tool which mandates recognition, settlement and vesting of rights of
ownership, usage, governance and management control, of the adivasis (including both the
Scheduled Tribes (ST) as well as the Other Traditional Forest Dweller’s (OTFD’s)), over
their traditional/customary forest lands, through proper examination of filed claims. It has given
a formal recognition to the traditional customary rights of forest-dwellers which is essential to
their livelihood, culture and religion. The act has been a pivotal shift from legal centralism to
legal pluralism in governance of rights of forest-dwellers. Due to its reliance over local self-
governance by empowering gram sabhas as formal institutions, some authors have claimed the
act to be a perfect example of “juristic legal pluralism” as its de- centralized mechanism makes
it stand in total contrast to the pre-existing centralist forest laws. The act acknowledges and
tries remedying the “the historical injustice occurred to the forest dwelling communities”
during both colonial and post-independence India and shiftsthe discourse of adivasis as not
being encroachers but as legitimate right holders hence, reversing the false stereotypes. FRA
has democratised forest governance by including a variety of both individual and community
rights. It has strengthened the role of Gram Sabhas, by granting greater autonomy, promoting
local governance and making the process more inclusive and participatory. The important role
of Gram Sabhas in verification of claims shows the respect the state apparatus is trying to show
to the traditional self-governance method of tribal communities hence, trying to simmer down
the dissonance between the state and the forest- dwelling communities.

The act aims to provide the communities some ownership, land-use rights and management
control over the forest’s minor produce. The act places great stress over sustainable use, which
includes protection and conservation of forest’s biodiversity and ecosystem, while also ensuring
livelihood security. Hence, connecting both livelihood and conservation as integral to each
other, thereby acknowledging the fact that strengthening the rights would also conserve the
forests. The act also talks about the rehabilitation of illegally evicted or displaced forest-
dwellers and brings within its fold the issue of resettlement packages to the affected members,
hence providing them statutory protection from the adverse effect of large scale developmental
projects. To facilitate quick redressal of grievances, strict adherence to the documentary
evidence was been done away with and inclusion of oral and physical evidences has been
accepted as a legitimate proof.

In 1992, our democracy took a significant step forward with the 73rd amendment to the
Constitution, devolving resources, responsibility, and decision-making from the central
8
government to the lowest governance unit, the Gram Sabha or the Village Assembly. Despite
this, scheduled areas were not automatically covered by the laws. As a result, the committee
recommended a new Act, PESA (Panchayat Extension in Scheduled Areas) Act 1995, to enable
Tribal Self Rule in these areas. The Act extended Panchayat provisions to tribal areas in nine
states falling under the Fifth Schedule Areas.The fundamental spirit of the Panchayat Extension
Act for tribal areas under the Fifth Schedule is its emphasis on devolving power and authority
to Gram Sabha and Panchayats rather than delegation, paving the way for participatory
democracy. The provision under the constitution and the composition under this act call for
every legislation on the Panchayat in the Fifth Schedule area to be in conformity with the
customary law, social and religious practices, and traditional management practices of
community resources. It also directs the state government to endow powers and authority to
make Gram Sabha and Panchayats function as institutions of Local Self Governance,
specifically on matters of enforcing prohibition of sale and consumption of intoxicants,
ownership of minor forest produce, power to prevent alienation of land and restoration of
unlawfully alienated land, management of village markets, control over money lending, etc.
PESA also empowers Gram Sabha in the Scheduled Areas to approve plans and programs for
social and economic development, and identify beneficiaries under poverty alleviation. The
Powers of the Gram Sabha under PESA are deemed to be 'competent' to safeguard and preserve
the traditions of their people, community resources, and customary mode of dispute resolution.

Loopholes in the Implementation of FRA.

Limitations within the legislation.

o Organizational structure mandated under FRA.

The Act falls silent over the extent of weightage the opinions or dissent of non-official
members, who are claimed to be people’s representatives, hold in the decision-making process.
The author while examining the claims of people found how less empowered these non-
officials are in reality. The members from tribal, forest and revenue department often interpret
laws as they deem fit, lacking the much-needed synergy between interpretations. This poor
inter-departmental co-ordination leads “to a multiplicity of interpretations (that are often
contradictory) and leaves room for arbitrariness and personal bias.”

o Varied interpretations of its provisions-

9
 The claims made under section 3(1) “are often stalled citing vague reasons and insignificant
errors” whereas claims made under section 3(2) “are approved on a far greater scale”. The
claims are also rejected by citing various onerous evidentiary and procedural requirements
which again are not to be strictly adhered to as per the provisions and rules of FRA.

o Evidentiary Bias-

Section 2(o) of the FRA mandates that “other traditional forest dweller (OTFD’s) means any
member or community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December
2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest or forests land for bona fide livelihood
needs.” Wrongful interpretation of the term ‘OTFD’ or inability to understand the dependency
clause of the OTFD’s, or because the person is not entire/wholly dependent of forests, or
because the claimant have another job, are some of the very flimsy grounds (whose answers
are right there within the FRA and its rules) on which the claims are rejected. Such a loose
interpretation of this requirement creates an evidentiary bias leading to rightful claimants losing
their titles.

Role of Judiciary
The judiciary in recent times has become one of the main tools to deal with the ineffectiveness of
the executive, or the lack of implementation of laws and policies related to Forest Rights Act and
Tribal Welfare.

1. The case of T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India,1 established a

significant legal definition of forests by the Supreme Court of India. According to the
ruling, all areas that meet the dictionary definition of forests, regardless of ownership or
classification, are deemed to be under the control of the forest department. Section 2(a)
of the act associated with this case defines "community forest resource" as customary
common forest land within the traditional or customary boundaries of the village or
seasonal use landscape for pastoral communities. This includes reserved forests, protected
forests, and areas like sanctuaries and national parks that the community traditionally
accessed. Furthermore, Section 2(c) specifies the definition of "forest dwelling scheduled
tribes" as members or communities of scheduled tribes who primarily reside in and
depend on forests or forest lands for genuine livelihood needs. This category also
encompasses scheduled tribe pastoralist communities. Lastly, Section 2(d) provides a

1
Writ Petition (civil) No.202 of 1995.
10
 definition for "forest land," encompassing land of any description within a forest area.
This includes unclassified forests, undermarked forests, existing or deemed forests, as
well as protected forests, reserved forests, sanctuaries, and national parks.
2. In the case of X X X vs In Re: The Union of India,2 the High Court of Gauhati
determined that the definition of "forest land" under the Scheduled Tribes and other
Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 includes
Sanctuaries and National Parks. Section 2(f) defines "forest villages" as settlements
established inside forests by the forest department of any state government for forestry
operations or converted into forest villages through the forest reservation process. This
includes forest settlement villages, fixed demand holdings, and various types of tangy
settlements, permitted for cultivation as authorized by the government. Additionally,
Section 2(g) defines "Gram Sabha" as a village assembly consisting of all adult members
of a village. In states without Panchayats, it includes Pads, Tolas, traditional village
institutions, and elected village committees, with the full and unrestricted participation of
women. Section 2(h) defines "habitat" as the area comprising the customary habitat and
other habitats in reserved and protected forests of primitive tribal groups, pre-agricultural
communities, and other forest-dwelling scheduled tribes. Furthermore, Section 2(i)
defines "minor forest produce" to include all non-timber forest produce of plant origin,
such as bamboo, brushwood, stumps, cane, hussar, cocoons, honey, wax, lac, tendu or
kind leaves, medicinal plants, herbs, roots, tubers, and the like. Lastly, Section 2(o)
defines "other traditional forest dweller" as any member or community who, for at least
three generations before December 13, 2005, primarily resided in and depended on the
forest or forest land for genuine livelihood needs.
3. In the Vedanta Case - Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry of Environment
& Forest & others (MOEF),3 the court clarified that while the Forest Rights Act does
not specifically define "Scheduled Tribe," the term "Traditional Forest Dweller" is
defined under section 2(o). It refers to any member or community who, for at least three
generations before December 13, 2005, has primarily resided in and depended on the
forest or forest land for genuine livelihood needs. Article 366(25) of the Constitution
further explains that Scheduled Tribes are those tribes or tribal communities defined under
In the case of Salem Mavatta Ezhpulli Malaivazh vs The State of Tamil Nadu, the court
ruled that forest dwellers, Scheduled Tribes, and other traditional forest dwellers have the
right to convert pattas, leases, or grants issued by any local authority or state government

2
PIL(suo motu) 66/2012, 67/2012, and WP(C) 648/2013 and 4860/2013.
3
(2008) 2 SCC 222, (2008) 9 SCC 711.
11
 on forest lands into titles. Additionally, the Forest Rights Act grants them the following
rights: h) Rights of settlement and conversion of all forest villages, old habitations,
unsurveyed villages, and other villages in the forests, whether recorded, notified, or not,
into revenue villages. i) Rights to protect, regenerate, or conserve or manage any
community forest resources.

4. In the case of Kathud Ravidashbhai Dharmabhai & others vs State of Gujarat4, the
court issued a directive to the respondents to accelerate the process of recognizing
community rights over forest resources. This recognition includes the right to protect,
conserve, and regenerate forests for sustainable use. Furthermore, the court urged the
expedited process of converting forest settlement villages into revenue villages, with the
aim of covering all villages under these provisions.

5. In the case of Arjun Ratansingh Jadhav vs The State of Maharashtra,5 the High
Court of Bombay determined that, according to Section 6, the Gram Sabha is the
authority responsible for initiating the process to determine the nature and extent of
individual or community forest rights, or both, to be granted to forest dwelling scheduled
tribes and other traditional forest dwellers within its local jurisdiction. The petitioner
failed to provide documentation demonstrating the purchase from any such scheduled
tribes recognized as traditional forest dwellers.

6. In the case of X X X vs In Re: The Union of India, the court held that the Act envisions
the establishment of Gram Sabhas and forest rights committees. These Gram Sabhas and
forest rights committees are tasked with examining and documenting the rights of forest
dwellers and Scheduled Tribes residing in the forest. In the current situation, no Gram
Sabhas or forest committees have been formed. The petitioners have been residents of
the forest area since the 1950s, and pattas were issued in their favor in 1962. The abrupt
eviction of the petitioners cannot be carried out without a proper inquiry and without
determining their rights over the land in question.

4
C/SCA/11559/2017.
5
Cri.W.P.No.681/2013.
12
 Solutions/Recommendations
So far, we have been able to establish the fact FRA has been a landmark legislation which has
brought a paradigm shift in forest governance vis-à-vis customary rights of forest-dwellers. But
the implementation of the act has been mired with numerous issues. Here are some of the
recommendations that can help in resolving the implementation issues that we found in FRA.

a) Strengthening institutions- FRA mandates a de-centralized multi-stakeholder

governance structure wherein many institutions are created for efficient working. The
unbiased constitution of these bodies in all states is paramount for the effective
implementation of the legislation. It is urgent to strengthen these institutions which
include the Gram Sabhas, FRC’s, SDLC’s, DLC’s, the SLMC, and to bring in much
needed synergy between different departments with a dedicated structure to better
streamline functioning of these institutions.
b) CFR implementation- FRA recognises CFR which includes bestowing of number of
rights to the forest-dwellers. CFR has the potential to bring in significant changes in
the lives of forest-dwellers by providing them with collective access to forest resources
by implementing CFR but as contended in the paper, the promotion and encouragement
towards CFR has not been adequate. The conservationist lobby along with the forest
department has been reluctant in implementing CFR. There needs to be greater
promotion of CFR by both the MoTA and MOEFCC, along with a clear mechanism to
recognise them without any pre-conceived bias. A large-scale exercise of creating
awareness (in local languages as well) regarding the CFR among the tribals (especially
amongst most vulnerable sections), forest officials, civil society groups are the need of
the hour with particular attention to be paid to women and particularly vulnerable
tribes, nomads and pastoralists. As stated by the Manthan report too, there stands a
need to “constitute technical support groups for clusters of villages” by the state
governments constituting of civil societies that have a history of working in such issues.
The 2015 directive on CFR by MoTA has taken up the issue of lackadaisical attitude
of State Level Monitoring Committees in many states who are not dealing with the
issue with the seriousness it deserves. The CFR claim should also be supplemented
with latest satellite imagery evidence and GIS (Geographical Information System)
tools to mark the areas, prepare maps and boundaries and help the claimant of CFR to
the greatest extent possible.
c) Protected areas (PA)- Protected areas have always created problems for forest-
dwellers. As per the provisions of FRA, forest-dwellers have same rights under PA as
13
 any other forest area with only difference being that the rights “in critical wildlife
habitats of National Parks and Sanctuaries may subsequently be modified or resettled”
provided that their rights are first recognised and vested before resettling the affected
people with prior informed consent of the Gram Sabhas. Despite the protections
granted to forest-dwellers under FRA, as well as the directives issued by the MOEFC
and MoTA it has been found that the provisions are not being adhered to.
d) Training of officials- The 2015 directive of MoTA recommends extensive training of
officials of FRC’s, DLC’s, SDLC’s, field officials, Gram Sabhas functionaries, etc.,
on a priority basis. Ill-trained and unaware officials have been one of the main reasons
for excessive rejection of rightful claims. The officials are found to beunaware of latest
rules/directives by the concerned ministries. They are found unaware of the rules and
procedures mandates under FRA. All these turn into hurdles that are stopping the FRA
from fulfilling its objective. Not only are they to be trained efficiently but the 2015
directive also recommends a “campaign mode” for implementation of FRA. The whole
drive regarding FRA shall be done as a campaign wherein all level functionaries who
are involved in the implementation of FRA are to be trained and motivated so that
we see less rejections of rightful claims, and thework can be done in a time bound
manner. State governments also need to undertake extensive knowledge and capacity
building programmes in a campaign mode, and the people need to be trained and
educated so that as per the directive they can make theirown bonafide representations
to get their forest rights recognised. The officials shall make all possible efforts to make
the claimants aware of the appeal options if they areunhappy with the decision of the
committees.
e) Reopening rejected claims- All efforts shall be taken to iron out all the existing
ambiguities regarding misinterpretation of the provisions of FRA, and all the cases that
were rejected based on such ambiguities shall be re-opened and effectively
resolved in a time bound manner. For example- clarity over the issue of OTFD’s and
their habitation requirement (dependency clause) needs to be sought and readdressed.
Reconstitution of FRC’s under gram sabhas and not gram Panchayat should be done
as the latter violates the provisions of FRA.
f) Updating people- All the stakeholders in the FRA process shall be updated regularly
with the latest orders and circulars of MoTA, MOEFCC, GoI regarding forest rights
and all attempts shall be made to make the claimants aware of them.

g) Removing legal indeterminacy- Since FRA, the structure of forest governance has
14
 changed from a centralised feudal structure to a more de-centralised, people-centric
structure. The presence of WLPA and IFA provides an edge to the forest bureaucracy
to use the laws to bypass FRA. There is an urgent need to amend WLPA and other
forest laws (FCA to incorporate 2009 guidelines by MOEFCC, and to bring in the
concept of public hearing within FCA) and bring them in harmony with the provisions
of FRA. The legal position of forest-dwellers has changed and therefore it’s imperative
to change other laws accordingly.
h) Attitude of forest bureaucracy- Kamal Nayan Choubey in his paper137 raises an
interesting and significant issue about attitude of forest department towards tribals
(Van Gujjars in his case). He points out that apart from all the limitations in fulfilling
the objectives of FRA, it’s the reluctancy of the forest department to look beyond the
false stereotypical image (illiterate and wild) of tribals. They fail to make any attempt
from their side to understand the “cultural practices and political awareness”138 of the
forest-dwelling communities and hence, always dictate commands to them from a
superior position. It is required that forest officials undertake their responsibility(follow
the due process) which is in consonance with the provisions of FRA.
i) Women participation- FRA mandates “full and unrestricted participation ofwomen”139
in the gram sabhas and mandates a strength of minimum of 33% in them. Other
institutions mandated under FRA also need to mandatorily have women participation,
yet studies140 have shown miniscule women participation in the processof recognition
of rights. Such an issue fails the constitutional promise of equality enshrined under
Article 14 of the constitution. More women participation is needed for better awareness
and sensitisation of the forest rights recognised under FRA.

15
 Conclusion

FRA has been a culmination of all the efforts to recognize the rights of forest dwellers and to
undo the historical injustices that they have been subjected to. This politically fraught and
deeply contested legislation is hailed by the adivasi community and forest rights activists as the
vehicle for attainment of greatly delayed social change, leading to a paradigm shift in forest
governance. It is beyond doubt that if that act is implemented with the letter and spirit which
the policymakers as well as forest rights supporters intended, then it can be a real gamechanger
of the rights regime for the adivasis. The act has immense potential and is slowly gaining
ground but there are various challenges to it as well. The challenges range from multiplicity of
laws leading to incoherence and overlapping, to inter-departmental conflicts. There is
inadequate funding and capacity building, inadequate community awareness and the officials
are improperly and inadequately trained, which leads to inefficiency in the process of
recognition of rights. There is dilution of the provisions of the Act either by way of parallel
laws or molding the provisions in such creative ways that they are leading to contraction rather
than expansion in accessing forest resources. Weakening the institutional structure mandated
under FRA to feudal, unchanging attitude of forest officials. But the picture is not all dull and
elusive. Most of the issues regarding recognition of rights are solvable. Various reports/districts
have shown time and again that respecting the rights regime mandated under FRA has benefited
the forest-dwellers immensely by providing them with greater authority and control over their
customary forest lands and attached resources. The act has been a progressive, out of the
ordinary and bold attempt to further the goal of sustainable development by empowering the
vulnerable forest dwelling communities, who since centuries, have been facing selective
exploitation and social, political and economic isolation. But the recognition of rights have
been slow, partial and reluctant. FRA has been a landmark legal reform but unless supported
by a robust, efficient and pro-active workforce, and greater political will, its objectives cannot
be fulfilled, and the act will remain tokenistic in nature.

16
 References

• Dev Prasad M & Suchithra Menon C, Indian Forest Legislation: Significance of

Recognizing the Legal Pluralism for Indigenous Peoples Rights, STATUTE LAW REVIEW
(2018).
• Kumar Rana & Mannabesh Sarkar, Living World of the Adivasis; an ethnographic
Exploration, PRATICHI TRUST INDIA, Mar. 2020.
• MADHAV GADGIL, RAMACHANDRA GUHA’S THIS FISSURED LAND: AN ECOLOGICAL
HISTORY OF INDIA (1992).
• Joseph Bara, Setting the Record Straight On Birsa Munda And His Political Legacy,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, Jul. 25, 2020.
• Kamal Nayan Choubey, Protected Areas, Forest Rights, and the Pandemic,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, Dec. 26, 2020.
• Manasi Karthik & Ajit Menon, Blurred Boundaries: Identity and Rights in The Forested
Landscapes Of Gudalur, Tamil Nadu, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, Mar. 5, 2016.

• National Research Study on Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Neighbouring

States of Odisha, SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES RESEARCH
AND TRAINING INSTITUTE, (2013).
• Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF & Ors, (2013) 6 SCR 881.
• Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (1996).
• Forest Conservation Act (1980).
• Forest Rights Act (2006).
• Granville Austin, The Indian constitution: cornerstone of a nation (1999).
• Government of India Act (1935).
• Government of India Forest Guidelines (1990).
• High Level Expert Committee on Socio-Economic, Health and Educational Status of
Tribal Communities of India, GoI 2014.
• Indian Forest Act (1927).
• Joint Committee of Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ministry of TribalAffairs,
Government of India Report on Forest Rights Act (2010), (also called Manthan Report).
• Márcia Dieguez Leuzinger & Kylie Lyngard, The land rights of indigenous and
traditional peoples in Brazil and Australia, REVISTA DE DIREITO
INTERNACIONAL, 2016
• Madhusudan Bandi, Forest Rights Act: Is There An Underlying Pattern In
17
 Implementation, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, May. 7, 2016.
• Maharashtra Village Forest Rules, 2014.
• Ministry of Tribal Affairs, D.O. No. 23011/18/2015-FRA, Training and Use of
Technology for Proper Implementation of FRA.
• Ministry of Tribal Affairs, D.O. No. 23011/18/2015-FRA.
• Monthly Update on Implementation of The Scheduled Tribes And Other Traditional
Forest Dwellers (Recognition Of Forest Rights Act, 2006), MINISTRY OF TRIBAL
AFFAIRS
• National Forest Policy (1952).
• Recognition of Community Rights Under Forest Rights Act in Madhya Pradesh and
Chhattisgarh: Challenges and Way Forward, U.N.D.P and Samarthan (2011).
• Scheduled Areas And Scheduled Tribes Commission Government Of India,
https://tribal.nic.in/writereaddata/AnnualReport/BhuriaReportFinal.pdf.
• Singh Negi, et al, Development Projects vs. Internally Displaced Populations in India:
A Literature Based Appraisal, SSOAR Dec. 2010.
• Sohini Sengupta & Manish K Jha, Social Policy and State-Community Relationships:
Storm Over Forest Rights In India, BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK (2020).
• Sujit Kumar, Forest Rights Act Enables State Control of Land and Denies MostAdivasis
and Forest dwellers Land Rights, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, Feb. 8, 2020.
• T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., WP (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
• VARSHA BHAGAT GANGULY & SUJIT KUMAR, INDIA’S SCHEDULED AREAS:
UNTANGLING GOVERNANCE, LAW AND POLITICS, (South Asian ed., 2020).
• V.B. Ganesan, Continuing Transgressions On Tribals Since The British Era, THE HINDU,
Sept. 2, 2014.
• (2009) Guidelines for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes under the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, Ensuring Compliance of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

18