The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) has issued a robust defense of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, in response to a legal challenge currently before the Supreme Court (SC) questioning the validity of the 2012 Rules framed under the Act. The Ministry’s counter affidavit strongly upholds the legal soundness of the FRA and emphasizes that the Act’s objectives extend far beyond mere land ownership regularization. Rather, it aims to restore the dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identities of forest-dependent communities across India.
The FRA was enacted to recognize and vest forest rights in Scheduled Tribes (STs) and other traditional forest dwellers who have lived on forest lands for generations but whose rights were never formally documented. These rights include ownership, access, and management over forest land and resources, which are vital for the survival and cultural continuity of these communities. The 2012 Rules under the Act elaborate on the procedures for submitting claims, recognizing individual and community rights, and defining the evidence admissible for establishing claims.
The challenge before the Supreme Court, brought forward through an interlocutory application (IA) by the non-profit organization Wildlife First in 2020, questions the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the FRA and the 2012 Rules. The petitioners argue that these provisions exceed Parliament’s legislative competence and conflict with wildlife and forest protection laws. They have raised concerns about the definitions of community rights, the disposal and commercial use of minor forest produce, and the extension of rights to communities other than Scheduled Tribes. Additionally, they have pushed for the adoption of technology-based verification mechanisms for forest title claims.
In its detailed counter affidavit, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs refutes these allegations, asserting that the FRA and its Rules do not conflict with conservation laws but rather complement them. The Ministry cites examples of indigenous communities such as the Baiga and Santhal tribes, who have historically coexisted with wildlife and contributed to its preservation through sustainable traditional practices. It argues that the view suggesting a conflict between the rights of forest dwellers and wildlife conservation is misguided and overlooks the symbiotic relationship between these communities and their environment.
One key point raised by the Ministry is the absence of a sunset clause in the FRA, which some critics have interpreted as a flaw. The Ministry clarifies that this is an intentional design choice to ensure equity for forest-dwelling communities, avoiding arbitrary deadlines that could exclude deserving claimants. This continuous applicability ensures that the rights of forest-dependent people can be recognized whenever they come forward, rather than within a limited timeframe.
Regarding the contentious issue of minor forest produce (MFP), the Ministry defends the right of forest dwellers to use and commercially dispose of surplus produce to meet their livelihood needs. Minor forest produce includes non-timber items such as bamboo, brushwood, honey, wax, lac, tendu (kendu) leaves, and cocoons, which are integral to the subsistence of millions of tribal and forest-dependent communities. The Ministry points out that approximately 100 million tribals directly depend on MFPs for their livelihoods, and the figure rises significantly when indirect dependence is considered.
The Ministry also highlights government efforts to regulate and support the sustainable harvesting and marketing of MFPs. For instance, it notes the minimum support price fixed by the government for certain MFPs and the establishment of Van Dhan Kendras—tribal community-owned marketing centers managed through the Tribal Co-operative Marketing Development Federation Ltd. These initiatives aim to empower tribal communities economically by ensuring they are not exploited by middlemen or contractors, thereby safeguarding their interests and enabling them to benefit directly from forest resources.
Addressing allegations of large-scale commercial extraction of forest produce, the Ministry states that no credible evidence or reports substantiate such claims. It emphasizes that the FRA and its Rules provide safeguards against monopolization and exploitation, reinforcing the economic empowerment of tribal communities rather than fostering commercial exploitation.
On the issue of defining “community,” the Ministry stresses that the FRA clearly delineates what constitutes a community eligible for forest rights. It points out that claims can be made by individuals, groups of individuals, or entire communities, and that the Gram Sabha—the village assembly—holds the ultimate authority to decide on community rights and cultural affiliations. The Ministry cites the landmark 2013 Niyamgiri judgment by the Supreme Court, which recognized the Dongria Kondh tribe’s cultural, religious, and community rights over the Niyamgiri Hills in Odisha. This judgment reaffirm