Experts alarmed over nearly 48,000 Community Forest Resource (CFR / CFRR) claims rejected across India.
Activists say arbitrary denials, flawed FRA Atlases and reliance on outdated Census data undermine Gram Sabhas.
They also weaken democratic forest governance and threaten the survival, identity and ecological rights of forest-dwelling communities.
The implementation of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, popularly known as the Forest Rights Act (FRA), has been under scrutiny since the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ (MoTA) March 2026 Monthly Progress Report (MPR) in march showed widespread rejections of community claims. The data revealed that a total of 47,901 CFR / CFRR claims have been rejected across India.
The state-wise data indicated large-scale rejections in several forested states, including 9,254 claims in West Bengal, 7,197 in Jammu & Kashmir, 6,285 in Madhya Pradesh, 4,270 in Karnataka, 3,658 in Chhattisgarh, 3,090 in Uttarakhand, 2,455 in Rajasthan, 2,331 in Gujarat, 2,144 in Maharashtra, 1,737 in Jharkhand, 1,682 in Telangana, and 1,470 in Andhra Pradesh. Other states including Odisha, Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, and Tripura have also reported rejections.
The data has sparked sharp criticism from forest rights activists, researchers, and grassroots organisations working with tribal and forest-dwelling communities across India.
Manohar Chouhan, independent researcher and FRA practitioner associated with the Campaign for Survival and Dignity, termed these rejections a “clear violation of the FRA, 2006”. The law does not permit arbitrary rejection of CFR and CFRR claims over forest lands, he added.
The Forest Rights Act was enacted with the historic objective of correcting “historical injustice” done to tribal and forest-dependent communities by formally recognising their customary rights over forests and forest resources. Unlike individual forest rights, Community Forest Resource Rights are considered one of the most transformative provisions of the Act because they empower Gram Sabhas to protect, manage, and conserve community forest resources traditionally used by them.
However, despite nearly two decades since the enactment of FRA, the recognition of CFRR remains extremely poor in many states. Experts argue that administrative reluctance, poor understanding of the law and resistance from forest bureaucracy continue to obstruct implementation.
One of the key concerns relates to the on-going process of preparing the FRA Atlas by different state governments under the guidance of MoTA. The Union Ministry has repeatedly emphasised the need for mapping “potential CFR / CFRR areas” to strengthen monitoring and implementation review mechanisms with states. However, according to him, the titles issued under CFR / CFRR in many states remain far below the actual potential area eligible under the law.
While MoTA is insisting on mapping of potential CFR / CFRR areas in the form of FRA Atlas so that monitoring and review can be made from time to time with the states, CFR / CFRR titles issued in different states are far away from the actual potential area. In that context, what actions and directions MoTA would take and give is a matter of concern,
The issue of proper mapping is central to effective implementation of community forest rights. Without clear identification of village-wise forest areas and traditional customary boundaries, Gram Sabhas often face enormous challenges in filing and defending their CFR claims.
A major flaw is itself in the FRA Atlas released by several states. Most state-level FRA Atlases fail to provide village-wise potential forest land information that could assist Gram Sabhas in preparing and filing CFR / CFRR claims.
While village-level forest land data would be the most crucial part of the FRA Atlas, none of the FRA Atlases released by state governments till date shows village-wise potential forest land information which can be helpful to the Gram Sabha while filing CFR / CFRR claims.
The absence of authentic village-level mapping has wider implications. In many areas, forest-dependent communities are unable to determine the exact extent of their customary forest resources, resulting in fragmented claims, partial recognition, or outright rejection by authorities.
The methodology adopted by several state governments while preparing the FRA Atlas raises several questions. Many states, including Odisha, Tamil Nadu, and Madhya Pradesh, have relied heavily on Census 2001 and Census 2011 data to estimate potential CFR areas.
However, Census is not the authentic source to enumerate and trace the FRA / CFR / CFRR potential area as it does not record forest land falling in reserve forest areas against a village,” explained Dr Chouhan. The Real Source Lies in Forest and Revenue Records
The authentic basis for identifying CFR and CFRR areas should come from revenue and forest land records, including proper mapping of District Level Committee forest lands as defined by the Supreme Court on 12th December 2006. Unfortunately, these records have not been properly surveyed and integrated by most states till date.
CFR key to conservation
Forest rights campaigners argue that inaccurate mapping and poor recognition of CFR rights undermine the very objectives of FRA. Community forest rights are not merely legal entitlements; they are closely linked with forest conservation, biodiversity protection, climate resilience, and livelihood security of millions of forest dwellers.
In several states, Gram Sabhas with recognised CFR rights have successfully protected forests from illegal felling, forest fires, mining, and encroachment while improving local livelihoods through sustainable management of non-timber forest produce, bamboo, medicinal plants, and traditional agriculture. Yet, despite these positive examples, CFR implementation continues to receive limited administrative priority compared to individual forest rights.
Another major issue highlighted by activists is the contradiction between forest governance policies and actual FRA implementation. On one hand, the Government of India promotes community participation, climate action, and biodiversity conservation through various schemes and international commitments. On the other hand, forest-dwelling communities continue to face procedural hurdles in securing legal recognition of their traditional forest governance systems.
Experts believe that unless Gram Sabhas are recognised as primary authorities under FRA, conflicts over forests and conservation governance are likely to intensify. The large-scale rejection of CFR claims, especially without transparent scrutiny and due process, raises concerns about denial of constitutional and legal rights guaranteed under the FRA.
The concerns become even more significant in the context of India’s climate commitments and forest restoration goals. Community-managed forests have consistently demonstrated better conservation outcomes compared to centrally controlled forest management models. Several studies across India have shown that where communities have secure tenure and governance rights, forest degradation reduces significantly.
The India State of Forest Report, published biennially by the Forest Survey of India, also highlights increasing dependence on forest landscapes for ecological services and climate mitigation. However, experts argue that forest conservation cannot be separated from tenure rights and democratic governance.
Grassroots organisations working on FRA implementation are now demanding immediate intervention from MoTA. They are calling for a review of all rejected CFR / CFRR claims, transparent village-level mapping of potential CFR areas, integration of authentic revenue and forest land records, and stronger accountability mechanisms for state governments.
Nearly twenty years after the enactment of the FRA, the debate is no longer only about recognition of rights, but also about the quality, extent, and integrity of implementation. The latest MoTA data has once again exposed the deep gaps between policy intent and administrative reality. For millions of tribal and forest-dwelling communities, the struggle for recognition of community forest rights remains not just a legal issue, but a question of survival, identity, governance, and ecological justice.
The growing concern over rejection of CFR and CFRR claims is not merely an administrative issue, but reflects a larger crisis in democratic decentralisation and natural resource governance in India. The FRA had envisioned Gram Sabhas as the central authority for protecting and managing community forests through customary practices and collective decision-making. However, continued bureaucratic control over forests, delayed recognition of community rights and rejection of legitimate claims have weakened the confidence of forest-dependent communities in the implementation process.
Proper implementation of CFR rights can significantly contribute to ecological restoration, reduce conflicts between forest departments and local communities and empower tribal populations to become equal partners in conservation and development planning. Unless these concerns are addressed urgently, the core objective of FRA to ensure justice, dignity, and self-governance for forest communities may remain unfulfilled.
Chitta Ranjan Pani is an independent researcher on livelihood, natural resource governance and mental health. Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.