Supreme Court’s FRA 2006 Ruling: Will India’s Forest Dwellers Finally Get Justice?

Tribal people from several places in Odisha are seen in a protest outside the State Assembly House in Bhubaneswar, demanding their land rights under the Forest Rights Act. They have been living inside wildlife sanctuaries and other forest-enclosed areas for many years.
| Photo Credit: Biswaranjan Rout/The Hindu

On April 2, the Supreme Court is set to hear a pivotal case concerning the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, which could impact millions of forest dwellers across the country. The case, Wildlife First and Others vs Union of India and Others, has been used by wildlife groups to challenge the FRA, potentially threatening the land rights of tribal and traditional forest communities. According to a press statement by Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD, a movement that advocates for the rights of tribal and forest-dwelling communities), the order resulted in the forced displacement of 17 lakh families. “In 2019, after a one-sided hearing in which the Central government failed to defend the law, the Supreme Court had ordered eviction of rejected claimants,” its statement noted.

The 2019 order was later put on hold after widespread protests leading to intervention from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), which the statement said “pointed out procedural lapses leading to wrongful rejection of claims”. However, despite the court’s directive to review the rejected claims, the process has been plagued with the same illegalities, raising serious concerns about the fate of those affected. “Now, on April 2nd, retired forest officials and wildlife NGOs behind this case want to ask for the eviction of lakhs of families again,” CSD warned.

The FRA was enacted in 2006 to correct what the government termed a “historic injustice” against Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers. Before this law, nearly a quarter of India’s land was declared government-owned forest land under colonial-era laws, without the consideration of the rights of crores of people who had lived in, used, and protected these lands for generations.

The FRA grants 13 rights to eligible communities, including rights over land, minor forest produce, and grazing, as well as crucial rights to manage and protect forests. The press statement, however, said that the law has not been to “the liking India’s forest bureaucracy because it removes their power to evict and harass people as well as their power to hand over forest land to large projects or companies”.

Also Read | Human-wildlife conflict can reduce only if community rights are recognised: C.R. Bijoy

Under CSD’s banner, more than 100 adivasi and forest-dweller’ organisations have called upon the central and State governments to do their constitutional duty and defend people’s rights. “We call upon the Central and State governments to defend the rights of India’s tribals and forest dwellers and to stop trying to use court orders, internal sabotage, and blatant illegality against our country’s most oppressed people,” read the statement from CSD. It argued that the government has deliberately failed to implement the FRA properly, either conducting no reviews or performing arbitrary ones that repeat past rejections.

CSD also underscored that opponents of the FRA are not just seeking evictions but also targeting key provisions that empower communities to manage their forests. “They also are targeting the law’s strongest and most pro-conservation provisions—the ones that entitle communities to protect their own forests. They want this power and the power to recognize rights to be vested with unaccountable forest officials,” it stated. This would roll back years of progress in community-led conservation efforts.

Despite the FRA explicitly protecting forest dwellers from eviction, large-scale displacement continues. Citing two case studies, the press statement examines satellite imagery in Gujarat that “cannot determine occupation of forest, which is what the law requires, and was deemed as mandatory evidence leading to large scale rejections”; in Madhya Pradesh “the forest department has forcibly evicted cultivators from forest land, often before their claims have even been processed”. As of January 31, 2025, MoTA records show that 18,06,890 claims have been rejected, though the reliability of these figures remains questionable due to inconsistencies in monthly data reporting.

The Centre has directed the Karnataka government to expedite the implementation of the Forest Rights Act so as to benefit tribal communities and other forest-dwelling communities.
| Photo Credit:
SRIRAM MA/The Hindu

This pattern of criminalisation of forest dwellers is in direct violation of the FRA’s mandate. “Furthermore, the shift to digital platforms has enabled bureaucratic overreach, with decisions being made by panchayat officials and officials at district and state levels, illegally bypassing the FRA-mandated authorities—Gram Sabha and Forest Rights Committee in verifying and approving claims,” CSD noted.

The broader context of forest governance in India has further exacerbated the crisis, said CSD. In recent years, the dilution of forest and environmental laws has facilitated large-scale land diversion for industrial and infrastructural projects. According to the statement, “In the past 15 years, more than 3 lakh hectares of forest land have been diverted for ‘development’ purposes, with nearly 60,000 hectares allocated for mining alone”.

Also Read | The sixth mass extinction is here—and it’s killing humans too

To counter these dangers, activists insisted that the government must act decisively. “We demand that the Central government ensure this misguided case is dismissed and that both it and all state governments recognise the rights of forest dwellers to their lands and to manage and protect forests, as required by the Forest Rights Act,” CSD said. This means not only defending the FRA in court but also reversing policies that allow bureaucratic interference in rights recognition.

The way forward

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, CSD highlighted several key demands that need to be addressed:

• The Central government and State governments must clearly inform the Supreme Court on April 2 that the FRA is constitutional in its entirety and the process of review of claims as well as recognition of rights must be allowed to run its course. The case should be dismissed. 
• The MoTA must ensure the review of rejected claims follows clear guidelines that uphold the authority and role of the Gram Sabha as the primary decision-making body and as per the procedures for verification process under FRA. The Ministry should issue binding directives preventing arbitrary rejections, requiring reasoned orders, and mandating the use of multiple forms of evidence, including oral testimonies and local verification. 
• Technology should be used only to supplement and support the FRA implementation process —such as maintaining a repository of documents, allowing claimants to track claim status, and ensuring public access to records. 
• No eviction and relocation from Tiger Reserves and other Protected Areas should take place until all claims—including those under review—have been processed in compliance with FRA. The Ministry must issue strict directives prohibiting forced evictions until the claimants have exhausted all avenues of appeal. Additionally, authorities found violating this directive should be held accountable under the FRA and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 
• No relocation from Tiger Reserves and other Protected Areas should take place until all claims—including those under review—have been processed in compliance with FRA, their consent obtained for relocation and relocation package ensuring due compensation and secure livelihood. 
• The Gram Sabha’s statutory authority and role in claim initiation, verification and decision-making should be reaffirmed, preventing bureaucratic and technological overreach. Any rejection of a claim must be justified in writing with an opportunity of appeal.
• Forest land diversion for mining, infrastructure, and conservation must strictly adhere to FRA provisions, particularly the requirement of free and prior informed Gram Sabha consent. 

According to CSD, the upcoming Supreme Court hearing is not just about legal technicalities—it is about the survival and dignity of millions who depend on forests for their livelihood. The court’s decision will shape the future of forest governance in India, determining whether forest dwellers can finally exercise their legal rights or continue to face displacement and dispossession, the movement noted.