Opinion: Uphold the spirit of Forest Rights Act
The tardy and slow pace of implementation of the Forest Rights Act, enacted 17 years ago, reflects the unchanged colonial mindset and hegemony of the bureaucracy, especially the district administration
By Nayakara Veeresha
The debate between environment and development has resurrected following the Telangana government’s action of cutting down trees in the Kancha Gachibowli forest area in Hyderabad. The point of discussion, environment Vs development, itself is deeply problematic given the narrowed understanding or contested meaning of the term development.
Also Read
The model of development pursued by most nations has come at the irreparable loss of the ecology and environment. The total forestland which the Telangana government claims is 400 acres. This indeed a huge tract of dense forest with rich biodiversity and wildlife. In the Lok Sabha on 24 March 2025, the Union Minister for Environment, Forestry and Climate Change (MoEFCC) stated that “during the period from 2014-15 to 2023-24, the forest area measuring 1,73,396.87 hectares has been approved for various non-forestry purposes including infrastructure projects under the provisions of Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980”.
Forest Governance
The diversion of forestland for developmental activities includes infrastructural projects of railway lines and corridors passing through the wild jungles of different parts of the country’s forest ecosystem. This draws to the attention of legislations aimed at protecting and preserving forests, wildlife and biodiversity.
Laws such as Indian Forests Act, 1927, Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and Biological Diversity Act, 2002, aim at maintaining the status quo of the colonial mode of forest governance. These legislations and their implementation on the ground have restricted the access of forests and other natural resources to the traditional forest-dwelling communities and Scheduled Tribes. The imposed restrictions through these Acts have widened the trust deficit between local communities and the government, especially forest bureaucracy.
To address this trust deficit and provide the right to access to the forest, the Government of India enacted ‘The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, or Forest Rights Act (FRA)’. It recognises and vests forest rights and occupation in forestland in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (OTFDs) who have been residing in such forests for generations. It provides a framework for recording the forest rights so vested and the nature of evidence required for such recognition and vesting in respect of forestland effective 31 December 2007.
Taking Stock
It has been 17 years since its enactment and hence it is necessary to take stock of how far the Act has realised its stated objectives. What are the major issues of implementation including the response of both political and administrative leadership to the rights-based legislation? How did the judiciary understand the issue while withholding its order of February 2019 regarding the eviction of those whose claims under the FRA have been rejected?
The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dweller (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, or Forest Rights Act vests forest rights and occupation in dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations
There are multiple factors including bureaucratic inertia and aversion towards the rights of OTFDs responsible for the ineffective implementation of the FRA. The tardy and slow pace of implementation of the FRA reflects the unchanged colonial mindset and hegemony of the bureaucracy, especially the district administration in delivering the human development outcomes. The callous nature has severely affected the implementation of rights-based legislations such as FRA.
The nexus between the political and administrative executive is ably appropriating the rights of OTFDs. A critical point is the inadequate capacity building provided to the trainee civil servants mainly to the members of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) and the Indian Forest Service (IFS). The colonial mindset and extractive nature of development in the neo-liberal regime explain only the partial aspect of the ineffective implementation. The power tussle between the regulatory and forest administration is one of the main issues for the inadequate implementation of the FRA.
The lack of accountability mechanisms within the FRA is hindering the pace of implementation. Adivasis and OTFDs are not in a position to bear the administrative and other operational costs that come in the way once the claim moves higher in the ladder from Gram Sabha to Forest Rights Committee and so on. It is clear that the district administration has not taken cognizance of the Gram Sabha resolutions in protecting the forestlands. The neglect of Gram Sabha resolutions and the follow-up actions by the district administration negates the rights of OTFDs through violation of FRA.
Wildlife First v Union of India
The Supreme Court is yet to complete the final hearing in the case of Wildlife First v Union of India wherein the matter has been was kept pending since 2019 onwards. April 2, 2025, was the latest date of hearing but it seems that the hearing was not completed. The case holds a significant role in upholding the rights of marginalised communities. The verdict in this case will decide and dictate the future course of action with regard to the forest ecosystem and extractive model of development. One of the key issues framed by the court is whether the FRA stands in conflict or complements other regulatory legislations of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
The insensitivity of the bureaucracy in general and forest bureaucracy in particular, and the unresponsiveness of the local political leaders are pushing the OTFDs into a deeper financial crisis by diminishing their subsistence economy and livelihood. In the wake of procedural complexities and the issues of implementation, there is a need for sensitising the local bureaucracy about the importance of forests, and the role of local communities in preserving the same.
However, without political will, delivering justice to the most vulnerable sections of society may not be possible. Both political will and administrative efficiency are the prerequisites for the effective implementation of FRA. But before this, the government needs to defend the criticality of FRA in the Supreme Court and convince the court about the constitutionality of the Act. A critical governance point is that it is the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, which will lead the arguments in place of MoEFCC to correct the ‘historical injustice’ meted out to the OTFDs and Scheduled Tribes. Upholding the spirit of FRA is inevitable not just for the rights of marginalised communities but also for the rights of the forest itself.
(The author is Assistant Professor, SVD Siddhartha Law College, Vijayawada. Views are personal)
