The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) is one of India’s most significant rights-based legislations. Enacted to address the historical injustices suffered by forest-dwelling communities, the Act recognises the pre-existing rights of Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) over forest land, community resources, minor forest produce (MFP), grazing areas, and traditional habitats. It empowers Gram Sabhas as the primary institutions for forest governance and conservation.
The FRA is consistent with the constitutional vision embodied in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, and international principles such as the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Despite its transformative potential, implementation remains far below expectations nearly two decades after the Act came into force.
According to the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) Monthly Progress Report (March 2026), more than 47,900 Community Forest Rights (CFR) and Community Forest Resource Rights (CFRR) claims have been rejected across the country. The highest numbers of rejections have been reported from West Bengal, Jammu & Kashmir, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, and Chhattisgarh.
These figures reveal serious shortcomings in claim verification, mapping processes, and respect for Gram Sabha recommendations. Recognition of CFRR has reached only a small fraction of its potential, despite an estimated 1.77 lakh forest-dependent villages and nearly 20 crore (200 million) people standing to benefit from the Act. Several critical provisions of the FRA continue to receive inadequate attention, including habitat rights for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), conversion of forest villages into revenue villages, recognition of pastoralist and nomadic rights, and protection of women’s rights.
Individual Forest Rights (IFR) claims also face high rejection rates in many states due to excessive dependence on documentary evidence, disregard for oral testimonies and customary knowledge, and inconsistent interpretation of eligibility criteria, especially for OTFDs.
Neglect of Community Rights
Implementation has largely focused on Individual Forest Rights while neglecting CFRR under Section 3(1)(i), which are central to community-led forest governance. Without CFRR recognition, Gram Sabhas remain unable to exercise their statutory authority over forest protection, management, and conservation.
Procedural violations and rejections
Many claims are rejected without proper verification, written justification, or opportunities for appeal, contrary to FRA Rules. In several areas, Forest Rights Committees and Gram Sabhas are bypassed, weakening the democratic processes envisaged under the Act.
Weak institutional capacity
As the nodal ministry, MoTA faces constraints in staffing, technical expertise, geospatial mapping, monitoring systems, and inter-ministerial coordination. These limitations affect its ability to support states, monitor implementation, and ensure compliance with legal provisions.
Exclusion of vulnerable groups
OTFDs continue to face difficulties due to restrictive interpretations of the “three generations” criterion. Habitat rights of PVTGs have been recognised in only a limited number of cases. Women often remain excluded from decision-making processes, and joint titles are not consistently implemented. Similarly, pastoralist and nomadic communities struggle to secure recognition of their customary and seasonal rights.
Restrictions on Minor Forest Produce
Although the FRA recognises ownership rights over MFP, forest-dependent communities continue to face restrictions in collection, transport, processing, storage, and marketing. Bureaucratic transit permit systems and monopolistic market structures limit community control and reduce livelihood opportunities.
Policy conflicts and parallel institutions
Conflicts persist between the FRA and various forest management systems, including Joint Forest Management Committees (JFMCs), Eco-Development Committees (EDCs), CAMPA-funded activities, and wildlife conservation programmes. In many cases, these institutions continue to function without Gram Sabha consent, undermining the authority granted under the FRA.
Relocations and evictions
In several protected areas and development projects, relocations continue without prior recognition of rights or informed consent of Gram Sabhas. Such actions violate the provisions of the FRA, PESA, and other related laws, leading to displacement, livelihood insecurity, and social conflict.
Slow conversion of forest villages
Thousands of forest villages remain outside the revenue administration system, denying residents access to land records, infrastructure, and government welfare schemes.
Weak monitoring mechanisms
State, District, and Sub-Divisional Level Monitoring Committees often function irregularly and lack transparency. Public access to implementation data and monitoring reports remains limited.
Launch a National Mission on FRA
The Government of India should initiate a time-bound National Mission for FRA implementation with dedicated financial resources, village-level targets, standardised mapping protocols, and strong monitoring mechanisms. The mission should prioritise recognition of CFRR and habitat rights.
Improve transparency and accountability
Clear guidelines should be issued regarding OTFD eligibility and claim verification procedures. Every rejection should be accompanied by written reasons and communicated to claimants. Recognised rights should be publicly notified with geo-referenced details. MoTA’s progress reports should provide separate data on CFRR, CFR, IFR, habitat rights, village conversions, and claim rejections.
Strengthen Gram Sabhas
Gram Sabha resolutions must be respected in all matters relating to forest governance. Dedicated registers, seals, and direct financial support should be provided to strengthen institutional autonomy. In areas where CFR rights have been recognised, JFMCs, EDCs, and similar parallel structures should be phased out and their responsibilities transferred to CFR Management Committees under Gram Sabha supervision.
Free, prior, and informed consent of Gram Sabhas should be mandatory for forestry, conservation, mining, infrastructure, and relocation projects. Regular capacity-building programmes should be organised, with special emphasis on women and youth, covering legal literacy, financial management, forest governance, leadership, and enterprise development.
Promote forest-based livelihoods
Transit permit barriers restricting MFP trade should be removed. Communities should be encouraged to establish producer-owned processing units, branding initiatives, and digital marketing platforms. Technical and financial assistance should support value addition of products such as bamboo, honey, medicinal plants, and tendu leaves.
Existing schemes such as Van Dhan Yojana and One District One Product (ODOP) should be aligned with FRA implementation, ensuring direct benefits to Gram Sabhas and CFR Management Committees. Fair-trade mechanisms should be promoted so that communities receive a larger share of market value.
Focus on vulnerable groups
Recognition of habitat rights for all PVTGs should be completed through a dedicated national programme. Women’s names should be included in all IFR titles, and at least 50 per cent representation of women should be ensured in CFR management institutions.
Special outreach programmes and mobile camps should be organised for pastoralist and nomadic communities. Seasonal migration routes, grazing rights, and customary resource-use patterns should be formally recognized and protected.
Harmonise laws and policies
The Government should issue clear policy directives affirming the primacy of the FRA in matters concerning forest rights. Harmonisation is required between the FRA and related laws such as the Wildlife Protection Act, CAMPA Act, PESA, Biological Diversity Act, and LARR Act 2013.
Conflicts between the FRA and the Indian Forest Act, 1927, as well as state forest laws, should be resolved through comprehensive guidelines jointly issued by MoTA and the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.
Strengthen monitoring and governance
MoTA’s institutional capacity should be enhanced through dedicated technical units, improved staffing, better monitoring systems, and increased financial resources. Regular field visits by senior officials and independent agencies should be institutionalized.
State, District, and Sub-Divisional Monitoring Committees should meet quarterly, and their proceedings should be made publicly available. State-specific action plans should be developed for regions with high rejection rates or poor CFRR performance.
A national FRA dashboard should be created with real-time information on claim status, title distribution, CFR governance, grievances, and best practices. Such a platform would improve transparency, accountability, and learning across states.
The Forest Rights Act represents a historic commitment to justice, democratic decentralisation, and sustainable forest governance. However, the gap between legal recognition and actual implementation remains substantial. Addressing the persistent challenges in recognition, governance, livelihoods, and institutional accountability requires urgent and coordinated action from MoTA, state governments, civil society organisations, and Gram Sabhas.
Strengthening implementation of the FRA is not only a matter of protecting rights; it is also essential for biodiversity conservation, climate resilience, sustainable livelihoods, and inclusive development. A renewed national commitment to the Act can help restore dignity, strengthen local self-governance, and ensure that India’s forest-dependent communities become genuine partners in conservation and development.
Chitta Ranjan Pani is an independent researcher on livelihood and natural resource governance. Sandeep Minhas has been working in the Himalayan region for more than two decades and is the Managing Trustee, People for Himalayan Development, Himachal Pradesh.
Views expressed are the authors’ own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.