Rewind: Chenchu relocation from Amrabad Tiger Reserve — Conservation effort or Tribal displacement?

The Telangana government’s proposed relocation of Chenchus from Amrabad Tiger Reserve raises serious constitutional and humanitarian concerns — Adivasis are forest custodians, not intruders

By Dr Palla Trinadha Rao

The recent relocation exercise initiated by the Telangana government in the Amrabad Tiger Reserve in Nagarkurnool district has raised serious constitutional, legal, ethical, and humanitarian concerns among Adivasi communities, tribal rights groups, and civil society organisations. While the process is officially presented as wildlife conservation and rehabilitation under Project Tiger, many members of the Chenchu community and rights defenders allege that it is proceeding without adherence to the constitutional safeguards, statutory protections, and democratic procedures guaranteed to Scheduled Tribes, particularly the Chenchus, who are recognised as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG).

---

The relocation process is inconsistent with the spirit of the notified Chenchu Reserve declared in the Amrabad Hills of erstwhile Mahabubnagar district. In 1942, the government notified rules reserving the Chenchu Reserve to protect the community, its welfare, livelihood, and roughly one lakh acres of forest land essential for its survival. These measures were based on the remarkable study of the Chenchus conducted by Dr von Fürer-Haimendorf.

Beyond Compensation

For the Chenchus, forests are not merely resources but the foundation of identity, autonomy, and survival. Relocation, therefore, represents not only physical displacement but also the erosion of cultural continuity, community institutions, and ecological knowledge that cannot be compensated through monetary packages alone.

The proposed package for the Amrabad Tiger Reserve provides two options: either payment of the entire package amount (Rs 15 lakh per family) directly to the family, or relocation and rehabilitation of the village. However, families opting for the rehabilitation and resettlement (R&R) package are required to move from the Scheduled Area to the non-Scheduled Area of Bacharam. The displacement of tribals from the Scheduled Area is governed by the provisions of the Land Acquisition and R&R Act, 2013, under which the consent of the Gram Sabha is essential.

The relocation creates long-term risks for tribal communities. If Adivasi families are relocated outside Agency protections, what happens to the safeguards available under the Fifth Schedule, PESA, tribal protective land transfer regulations, and Scheduled Area governance systems? The displaced Adivasis may become vulnerable to land alienation, economic exploitation, and eventual landlessness.
Authorities often justify relocation on the grounds of inadequate infrastructure within tiger reserves.

However, this raises a fundamental question: why should development require displacement instead of strengthening infrastructure and services within existing tribal habitations? The prevailing approach appears to treat relocation as the only solution while ignoring coexistence models that can protect both wildlife and indigenous rights.

Framing the issue as a choice between tiger conservation and Adivasi existence is deeply problematic, especially when indigenous communities have historically played a crucial role in conserving forests and biodiversity.

Living Together

Significantly, even the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife, in its meeting reportedly held on 17 March 2026, is said to have emphasised the importance of coexistence between wildlife and local communities, including within core tiger habitats. This reflects an emerging recognition that democratic conservation and indigenous habitation are not necessarily contradictory.

According to the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and recent tiger estimation reports, Telangana has witnessed a gradual increase in tiger numbers in recent years, particularly in Amrabad and Kawal Tiger Reserve landscapes. The 2022 All India Tiger Estimation reportedly recorded around 21 tigers in the Amrabad Tiger Reserve, while subsequent Forest Department assessments and media reports suggest that the number has further increased in recent years, with reports indicating that Amrabad now host more than 30 tigers.

However, increasing tiger populations should not be used to create a narrative in which Adivasi communities are viewed as incompatible with conservation. The rise in tiger numbers itself has occurred in landscapes historically inhabited and protected by indigenous communities such as the Chenchus. This reinforces the argument that coexistence models are not only possible but historically proven.

The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution, read with Article 244, provides special protections for Scheduled Tribes living in Scheduled Areas, and institutions such as the Tribal Advisory Council (TAC) were specifically created to ensure that policies affecting tribal communities are examined through the lens of constitutional justice and tribal welfare.

In this context, the ongoing relocation exercise raises serious concerns because, as per GO Ms No. 117, Social Welfare and Labour Department, dated 28 January 1958, issued by the Governor, any scheme or project affecting the livelihoods and rights of tribal communities must be placed before the TAC.

However, concerns have been raised that the proposed relocation of Chenchu communities from their traditional forest habitats under the tiger conservation programme was not placed before the TAC for deliberation and resolution, thereby raising important questions regarding the legality and constitutional validity of the process.

What Law Says

The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), recognises the authority of Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas over community resources, customary governance, and local decision-making. According to community accounts, instead of conducting genuine Gram Sabha consultations involving all affected Chenchu families, authorities allegedly invited only selected individuals — including some non-tribals — to Hyderabad and distributed cheques.

PESA requires informed participation and collective decision-making by Gram Sabhas in matters affecting tribal lands, resources, and livelihoods. Selective consultations cannot substitute constitutional procedures

The NTCA Guidelines themselves mandate that the free and informed consent of the Gram Sabha and affected villagers must be obtained in writing regarding the proposed resettlement package or option.

The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), recognises individual and community rights over forests, customary resources, particularly for Chenchu Habitat Rights in the forests. Under Section 5 of the FRA, Gram Sabhas are also empowered to protect forests, wildlife, biodiversity, and habitats, and to ensure compliance with their decisions regarding community forest resources.

The Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, as amended in 2006, and the NTCA Guidelines governing relocation from core tiger habitats also impose mandatory safeguards. Relocation must comply with both the Wildlife Protection Act and the Forest Rights Act. The Guidelines explicitly provide that even in cases of voluntary relocation, the rights of people should be recognised and settled before relocation. Under Section 38V(5) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, relocation from critical tiger habitats can occur only after these safeguards are satisfied.

NTCA Guidelines require recognition and vesting of rights before relocation, scientific establishment of irreversible ecological damage, examination of coexistence options, informed consent of Gram Sabhas, and provision of livelihood and rehabilitation guarantees. They also clearly state that relocation is voluntary and can occur only if people are willing to move.

Under Section 4(2)(c) of the FRA and the NTCA Guidelines, the state must establish that “other reasonable options of coexistence are not available” before relocation can proceed. The Chenchus’ relationship with the landscape is fundamentally different from commercial exploitation or destructive extraction. If tiger populations have increased in landscapes historically inhabited by Chenchus, the State must answer whether coexistence models were genuinely explored before resorting to relocation.

One of the gravest concerns in the Amrabad relocation process relates to the apparent failure to implement the Forest Rights Act before initiating relocation. In several Chenchu villages within the tiger reserve, Community Forest Rights claims reportedly remain pending before the Sub-Divisional Level Committees and District Level Committees. Numerous Individual Forest Rights claims are also said to remain unresolved or only partially recognised. In villages such as Rayuledupenta, some families reportedly received only IFR claim numbers while formal pattas were never issued.

It is also alleged that the National Human Rights Commission directed authorities to distribute titles immediately, but implementation remains incomplete. Further, Habitat Rights — especially crucial for PVTGs such as the Chenchus — reportedly have not even been initiated despite directions issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Habitat Rights are particularly important because they recognise the collective relationship of PVTGs with their traditional territories, customary practices, and ecological systems. Proceeding with relocation without recognising these rights would constitute a direct violation of the FRA and the NTCA Guidelines.

Missing Informed Consent

The official narrative repeatedly describes the process as “voluntary relocation.” However, serious concerns have emerged regarding whether genuine free and informed consent actually exists. Many Chenchu women reportedly complain of harassment while collecting firewood, tubers, medicinal plants, wild foods, and non-timber forest produce essential for their subsistence economy. Communities also allege restrictions on cultivation, ploughing permissions, and access to welfare services. Such conditions inevitably create indirect pressure upon vulnerable populations to “agree” to relocation. Consent obtained under deprivation, fear, insecurity, manipulation, or administrative pressure cannot legally qualify as “free informed consent.”

In Rayuledupenta, disturbing allegations have emerged that families were forcibly shifted during the Covid-19 period at night and abandoned in nearby settlements without due process. If true, such actions would represent a grave assault on constitutional protections, human dignity, and the rule of law.

Concerns surrounding Amrabad are intensified by earlier relocation experiences in the Kawal Tiger Reserve in Adilabad district, where villages such as Mysampet and Rampur were reportedly relocated in 2024 without adequate legal compliance. Affected families are said to be still awaiting land allocation, compensation, and promised facilities. Many reportedly survive as daily wage labourers because the lands provided to them remain uncultivable or economically unviable.

Data from different villages suggest that support for relocation is far from unanimous.

• In Sarlapally, of the 74 Chenchu families, only around 20 are reportedly willing to relocate.
• In Kudichintalabayalu, 11 out of 38 families have reportedly expressed willingness.
• In Vatvarlapally, including Rayuledupenta, only 3 out of 25 families are said to support relocation.

Even among those agreeing to relocate, many reportedly do so because poverty, insecurity, denial of services, or lack of alternatives leave them with little meaningful choice. This raises a deeper constitutional question: can consent obtained under deprivation and unequal power relations truly be regarded as voluntary?

The conflict unfolding in the Amrabad Tiger Reserve represents a larger national debate about conservation, constitutional morality, and indigenous rights. Adivasis are not intruders in forests. They are historical inhabitants and custodians of these landscapes. Constitutional morality requires that conservation policies respect indigenous rights, democratic participation, habitat security, and cultural survival.

The issue, therefore, is not simply about supporting or opposing relocation, but about questioning a development model that presents wildlife conservation and Adivasi existence as opposing choices. The Chenchu struggle is, therefore, not merely about compensation packages or rehabilitation colonies. It is about dignity, self-determination, cultural continuity, and the right to live within ancestral forests with constitutional protection. The future cannot be built upon the displacement, fragmentation, and erosion of vulnerable communities in the name of ecological protection.

The real question is whether India can imagine a conservation model where forests survive, wildlife thrives, and Adivasi communities continue to live with dignity in their traditional habitats — not as obstacles to conservation, but as equal participants in protecting nature itself.

(The author is a practising lawyer, and tribal rights activist)