These are questions of fact, which can be adjudicated upon through a merit review, as opposed to judicial review. Unlike courts, a tribunal will provide people a dedicated independent forum where they will have a statutory right to approach. The tribunal will be bound to hear them and pass orders.
(Ritwick Dutta is a Delhi-based environmental lawyer and founder of Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment) DESPITE AIMING to decentralise decision making at the level of the gram sabha, the forest rights Act (FRA) concentrates power in the hands of district level bureaucrats—the sub-divisional officer and the district collector/ deputy commissioner. To comprehend the issue, it is important to understand the claims-recognition process. The gram sabha initiates the process for both individual and community level claims. It passes a resolution accepting or rejecting a claim. The resolution is then forwarded to the Sub Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) headed by the sub-divisional officer. The SDLC examines it and prepares a record of forest rights. The resolution then goes to the District Level Committee (DLC) headed by the district collector for a final decision. Any one aggrieved by the resolution of the gram sabha can petition the SDLC within 60 days from the date of resolution. The SDLC is required to “consider and dispose of” such petition. Anyone aggrieved by the decision of the SDLC may petition before the DLC, whose decision is “final and binding”.
There are serious concerns with this process. The first concern is that, while there is a definite time within which the aggrieved party can approach the SDLC or DLC (maximum 90 days from the date of resolution of gram sabha or the order of SDLC), there is no timeline within which the SDLC or DLC is required to adjudicate on the petition. This has led to endless pendency. As per Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, nearly 0.7 million claims are pending in 2026.
The second concern is the absence of an appellate authority above the DLC. The only recourse available for any person aggrieved by the decision of the DLC is to approach the jurisdictional high court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. For forest dwellers in remote locations, approaching the high court is almost impossible–both physically and financially. In view of these shortcoming, FRA should be amended to provide for a right of appeal against the decision of the DLC by anyone aggrieved. The appeal should be heard by an Appellate Authority which may be called the Forest Rights Appellate Tribunal (FORAT).
The question that often arises is what is so special about a statutory appeal as opposed to a writ petition? The answer is that there are fundamental differences. Under Article 226 and 227, the high court may consider a writ petition in its discretion and not as a matter of right. Writ jurisdiction confers the power of "judicial review" on decisions taken by the executive. However, the high court in exercise of its power of judicial review is concerned only with the "decision making process" and not the merits of the decision. This is a major limitation when it comes to review of claims that are rejected under the FRA.
These are questions of fact, which can be adjudicated upon through a merit review, as opposed to judicial review. Unlike courts, a tribunal will provide people a dedicated independent forum where they will have a statutory right to approach. The tribunal will be bound to hear them and pass orders.
(Ritwick Dutta is a Delhi-based environmental lawyer and founder of Legal Initiative for Forest and Environment)
This column was originally published as part of the article A mindless denial in the June 16-30, 2026 print edition of Down To Earth