The Indian government has strongly defended the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 in the Supreme Court. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) has filed an affidavit to counter a plea challenging the legal standing of the 2012 Rules made under the Act. The Centre argues that the FRA is more than just about land ownership. It aims to restore the dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identity of communities living in forest areas.
The Ministry has rejected claims that the FRA conflicts with wildlife protection laws. It states that the view that forest community rights harm conservation efforts is misguided. The government pointed to indigenous communities like the Baiga and Santhal, noting their long history of living in harmony with wildlife and preserving it through traditional methods.
A key point made by MoTA is that the absence of a ‘sunset clause’ in the law is intentional. This design choice ensures fairness by not imposing arbitrary deadlines for claiming rights. The Ministry also defended several important provisions in the 2012 Rules. These cover community rights, how communities can manage forest resources, the sale of minor forest produce, and the powers of the Gram Sabha (village council) to protect traditional rights.
The FRA, enacted in 2006, aims to formally recognise the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. Many of these communities have lived on forest lands for generations, but their rights were never officially recorded. The Act and its Rules provide a process for submitting claims, recognising both individual and community forest rights, and detailing the types of evidence that can be used.
MoTA’s submission was in response to an application filed by the non-profit Wildlife First. This group had challenged the constitutional validity of the FRA, arguing it was beyond the powers of Parliament to enact.
The petitioners raised concerns about specific parts of the 2012 Rules. These included the definition of ‘community rights,’ the process for selling minor forest produce, granting rights to communities other than Scheduled Tribes, and the use of technology to verify land claims.
In response, the Centre has countered the accusation that allowing titleholders to sell minor forest produce leads to harmful commercial extraction. Minor forest produce includes items like bamboo, honey, and leaves used for beedis. Around 100 million tribal people and forest dwellers rely directly on these products for their survival and income. The government supports these communities through minimum support prices and marketing centres.
MoTA stated that there is no evidence to support claims of large-scale extraction. Regarding the right to sell minor forest produce, the Centre argued that the law prevents contractors and middlemen from monopolising these resources. This, they believe, empowers tribal communities economically rather than exploiting them.
On the definition of ‘community,’ the Centre clarified that the Act clearly defines who can be considered a community. It can be an individual, a group of individuals, or a community. The Ministry cited the 2013 Niyamgiri judgment, which recognised the rights of the Dongria Kondh tribe over the Niyamgiri Hills and confirmed the Gram Sabha’s final authority on community rights.
Regarding constitutional matters, the Centre asserted that Parliament has the full authority to enact this significant legislation.