Adivasi groups under the Campaign for Survival and Dignity denounce the Tribal Affairs Ministry’s claim that Gram Sabha consent is outside its purview in forest diversion cases.
They say this abdicates statutory responsibility under the Forest Rights Act, aids corporate projects, defies Supreme Court precedent, and undermines decades-old legal safeguards for forest dwellers’ rights and democratic participation.
Adivasi and forest dwellers organisations have condemned the latest stand taken by the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) stating that it has no role and no stand on whether the consent of Adivasis and forest dwellers is required prior to the diversion of forest land and the destruction of forests.
The organisations through Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD), a national platform of Adivasi and forest dwellers, have said such a stand from the ministry is an attempt to wash its hands off its responsibility and alleged that it will favour the interests of project developers, contractors and big corporations.
On August 31, MoTA issued an official memorandum stating that: “(t)here is no provision for obtaining consent of the Gram Sabha for forest clearance for Stage-II forest clearance in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act. 2006 (in short, FRA) and Rules made thereunder. Therefore, such matters do not fall under the purview of Ministry of Tribal Affairs.” (emphasis added)
“The requirement for consent has been the settled legal position for almost two decades now, and attempting to reverse it through this backdoor method smacks of cowardice and anti-people, anti-democratic and unconstitutional motivations,” a statement by CSD noted.
It alleged that as it is the Forest Rights Act that is being grossly violated across the country — the central and state governments have been destroying forests, curtailing forest rights and threatening the livelihoods of forest dwellers by diverting land for large projects at an alarming pace. This is only the latest blow of the current government to sabotage this historic law, it said.
CSD said the statement issued by MoTA through Office Memorandum (OM) came in the context of the 31st Report of the Parliament Committee on Public Undertakings (18th Lok Sabha), placed before Parliament on August 6, 2026, and in particular, the concerns raised by the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited (NHPC) with regard to delay in their projects purportedly due to the requirement of obtaining Gram Sabha consent.
In its Observations and Recommendations, the Committee has reiterated the suggestion by NHPC that processes relating to Gram Sabha consent be completed at “the pre-feasibility stage”. It is part of the political trend where various standing committees and other committees like on steel, mines and coal (chaired by Members of Parliament from the ruling party at the Centre) have been asking for changes and dilution in the Gram Sabha consent procedure to fast-track forest diversions, the statement by CSD noted. It is a misinformation campaign that the requirement of Gram Sabha consent is the critical factor for delaying projects. On the contrary around 3,05,945.38 hectares of forest land have been approved for non-forest use under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, from 2008-09 to 2022-23 without fully complying with FRA. The forest diversions have further increased after the amendment in the Forest (Conservation) Act.
CSD said such a statement issued through OM is factually and legally untenable and shows dereliction of duty and abdication of statutory authority by MoTA.
In its statement, CSD further said, “At the outset, when the decision to draft a legislation along the lines of the Forest Rights Act was taken at the highest level in early 2005, it was also decided that the mandate for drafting, as well as implementing the legislation cannot remain under the Ministry of Environment and Forests (or MoEF, as it then was) and it was the Ministry of Tribal Affairs which was assigned this task.”
To reflect this decision, the Government of India (Allocation of Business Rules) 1961 were amended in March 2005 so that MoTA was vested with the responsibility over “(a)ll matters including legislation relating to the rights of forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes on forest lands.”
A co-terminus amendment was made in the same Rules divesting the MoEF of any authority over such subject matters, the CSD statement added. It noted the Forest Rights Act, 2006 reiterates this authority and responsibility under Section 11, under which MoTA is the nodal authority for implementation of the provisions of the Act.
“Ever since, apart from regular monitoring of the implementation process itself at a granular level, this Ministry has notified Rules, Guidelines, Circulars, and a host of Executive Instructions to ensure the Forest Rights Act is implemented in its true letter and spirit. One area of this law where MoTA has been called upon as the Nodal Authority time and again, relates to the requirement of Gram Sabha consent prior to forest clearance under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (since re-named),” it said.
CSD alleged that the OM issued reflects the failure of the ministry and its officers to acknowledge the provisions under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (as amended in 2023), which directly relates to the subject matter of the 1980 Act, namely, Stage-II forest clearance.
In fact, compliance with the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and therefore the mandate to obtain prior Gram Sabha consent, before grant of Stage-II forest approval has been articulated in the aforesaid Rules and Guidelines prior to grant of “working permissions” in several categories of forest diversion and certainly is a requirement prior to grant of final forest clearance in the said Rules and Guidelines. It is completely shocking that MoTA has made such a gargantuan factual blunder, something which could have been avoided simply by reading the text of the law, CSD said.
They underlined that free prior informed consent of Gram Sabhas is a prerequisite to grant forest clearance and has been affirmed by the apex court through its Niyamgiri judgment [(2013) 6 SCC 476] verdict.
“In 2014 the Ministry of Tribal Affairs itself reiterated in a letter that exemptions from the Forest Rights Act are not permitted, no department can grant them and that failure to comply may result in court intervention. The statutory requirement of getting consent is based on FRA framework itself and that the FCA procedure includes this as compliance mechanism. The decision of the Gram Sabha on forest governance, management and conservation includes diversion of forest land and emerges from the core of FRA read with PESA and constitutional provisions,” the statement observed.
In fact, CSD along with other forest dweller organisations has been demanding for decades that the rights recognition process under FRA as well as consent of Gram Sabhas must be obtained prior to Stage-1 forest clearance, so that forest dwellers are not presented with a fait accompli at the tail-end of the process, where their participation in the decision-making process has become moot. CSD pointed out that the Parliament Committee has also recommended that the requirement of 100 per cent consent be reduced to 70-75 per cent consent.
“This recommendation is incorrect and misreads the law – every Gram Sabha has its own rights and its own powers – it is completely baffling that MoTA has gone on to erase the requirement of Gram Sabha consent from the law in its entirety, something which was neither recommended by the Parliament Committee, nor indeed raised as a submission by the NHPC,” it said. MoTA has been vested with the authority to protect FRA in public trust, and today that trust has been broken, CSD said
It added that the OM should be immediately withdrawn and that MoTA should exercise its constitutional and statutory responsibility for effective implementation of FRA, ensure that prior to any kind of forest diversion, all forest rights under FRA must be recognised, and the free prior informed consent of affected Gram Sabhas obtained, without exception.