Gram Sabhas hold supreme authority under FRA — forest departments must facilitate, not regulate, CFR governance

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act (FRA) of 2006 marks a pivotal legislative achievement in India, designed to redress historical injustices faced by forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers. It recognises their inherent rights to ancestral forests, promoting empowerment through Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights.

At the heart of this empowerment lies the Gram Sabha, which, upon receiving CFR recognition, is vested with supreme authority to manage, conserve, and sustainably utilise forest resources. This legal mandate ensures forest governance reflects the knowledge and experiences of those who depend on these ecosystems.

Recent developments in Chhattisgarh, however, reveal a contradiction. A Chhattisgarh forest department’s directive dated May 15, 2025 declared itself the “nodal agency”, banning non-governmental organisations (NGO) and other departments from aiding Gram Sabhas in CFR management.

A joint communication from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change proposed model CFR management plans aligned with the National Working Plan Code (NWPC) 2023 for “scientific forest management” to train officials for integration.

Yet, the forest department interpreted this as requiring NWPC conformity, halting CFR work and prohibiting external involvement — deepening the clash between bureaucracy and community authority and contravenin FRA’s legal framework. By barring NGOs from CFR areas, including those under the Dharti Aba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan (DAJGUA) scheme, the department overstepped its facilitative role under Rule 12A(6), which confined it to providing technical support such as maps.

On July 3, 2025, the Chhattisgarh forest department withdrew its May 15, 2025 advisory and a June 23 corrigendum, following widespread protests and resentment from tribal groups, Gram Sabhas and activists across the state on July 1 and 2. The advisory had sparked outrage for undermining community rights.

The principal chief conservator of forests clarified it was a temporary measure for ecological consistency, not control, but the backlash forced its retraction under orders from Forest Minister Kedar Nath Kashyap.

Legal foundations show supremacy of CFR Gram Sabha 

FRA addresses the alienation of forest-dwelling communities, establishing a strong legal basis for the supremacy of CFR-recognised Gram Sabhas. Section 3(1)(i) grants rights to protect, regenerate and manage forest resources, rooted in generational dependence. Section 5 empowers Gram Sabhas to safeguard forests, wildlife, biodiversity and cultural heritage, curbing adjacent destructive practices. Rule 4(1)(e) of the 2012 Rules designates the Gram Sabha as the primary entity to initiate rights determination, including CFR rights, while Rule 4(1)(f) allows committees for conservation planning. 

This empowers communities to create tailored forest plans, with the state limited to a facilitative role. The forest department’s order violated this. By barring NGOs, including DAJGUA participants, it exceeds its facilitative role under Rule 12A(6), echoing colonial centralisation and undermining Gram Sabha autonomy.

Chhattisgarh’s situation exemplified the tension between bureaucracy and community rights. The state government had nearly finalised NGO support through the DAJGUA scheme, but the forest department’s intervention stalled progress. However, the forest department’s intervention, leveraging its interpretation of the NWPC, has stalled this progress, prompting guidance from the tribal affairs ministry.

CFR plans empower sustainable resource use across Chhattisgarh’s 20,062.24 square kilometres of CFR land (4,349 cases), yet the department’s retention of control — possibly driven by institutional interests or a misreading of the NWPC — delays progress and erodes trust. Though the state claims to support communities, the department’s control-first approach challenges the FRA’s vision.

Forest department’s role: Regulator or facilitator?

FRA clearly delineates responsibilities, positioning the forest department’s role as supportive rather than authoritative. Rule 12A(6) mandates that it provide Gram Sabhas with boundary demarcations, maps and technical assistance to formulate CFR management plans, including data on forest cover, wildlife and resources to enable informed decisions. Section 4(5) further requires collaboration with agencies to prevent encroachments on CFR areas.

However, the Chhattisgarh forest department’s conduct diverges sharply from this facilitative mandate. Its ban on external support, justified by the 2020 circular and pending NWPC-aligned model plans, adopts a regulatory stance, implying that only its endorsed methods or personnel may engage with CFR areas. This interpretation — halting all progress until ministry directives arrive — clashes with the FRA’s objective of empowering Gram Sabhas as autonomous entities.

A facilitative role would see the forest department partnering with Gram Sabhas, offering training in sustainable harvesting, access to conservation tools and funding support via schemes like DAJGUA, helping Gram Sabhas balance livelihoods with conservation. 

The current regulatory approach, however, risks alienating communities, fostering resentment and undermining participatory governance — particularly as it misaligns the NWPC’s scientific framework with community-led management.

The supremacy of CFR-recognised Gram Sabhas carries profound implications for forest management and conservation across India. Communities empowered with decision-making authority are more inclined to adopt sustainable practices, drawing on their deep-rooted knowledge of biodiversity and resource use. In Chhattisgarh, the recognition of 478,000 individual land titles and 20,062.24 square kilometres of CFR land has fortified tribal self-governance, which could have been jeopardised by departmental restrictions.

The FRA’s community-led approach contrasts with the department’s exclusionary protectionism, which often blames locals while ignoring industrial encroachment and monocultures. The issuance of 4,300 CFR titles in just 1.5 years under the current administration testifies to the effectiveness of supported Gram Sabhas.

Moreover, the Chhattisgarh case reflects a broader trend of forest department overreach. The department’s stance, bolstered by its NWPC interpretation, echoed accusations by forest rights groups of environment ministry subversion, including accelerated relocations from tiger reserves. This underscores the urgency for a paradigm shift, one in which the forest department facilitates rather than regulates, allowing CFR Gram Sabhas to execute plans free from bureaucratic misinterpretation or delay.

What needs to be done

Despite its legal foundations, the supremacy of CFR Gram Sabhas faces major hurdles. The Chhattisgarh Forest Department’s resistance, amplified by its restrictive interpretation of NWPC alignment, typifies a broader institutional inertia that favours control over collaboration. This is compounded by limited awareness among Gram Sabhas of their rights, inadequate technical expertise and insufficient funding. The DAJGUA scheme has stalled amid inter-departmental discord and pending model plans.

To overcome these challenges, the Union Tribal Affairs Ministry must unequivocally affirm Gram Sabha autonomy. This could include clear directives restricting the Forest Department to a facilitative role, supported by training programmes, resource allocation and the swift release of NWPC-aligned model plans — clarifying how scientific frameworks can integrate without imposing control. 

Reinstating NGO assistance would bridge capacity gaps and enable robust management plan development. The top-down conservation narrative often marginalises community perspectives, but the FRA asserts local stewardship as essential to sustainability.

The silence of big NGOs has been a betrayal of trust too. Thos that initially advocated for CFR rights under FRA have now grown conspicuously silent on the Chhattisgarh Forest Department’s obstruction and its stance on the NWPC. Dependence on funding and fear of fallout have pushed them towards compliance, betraying community trust and weakening the FRA’s democratic spirit. Smaller groups are now left to resist alone.

To counter overreach, the May 15, 2025 directive must be revoked, bringing the department into alignment with its Rule 12A(6) support role. Gram Sabhas should lead CFR planning, using NWPC guidelines optionally. NGO collaboration, subject to consent, should resume under DAJGUA. Updated and publicly available CFR titles with maps are needed. All forest activities, including NWPC-linked felling, must require Gram Sabha approval. 

Full revenue transfers, the dissolution of JFMCs with fund reallocations and ownership of forest produce like tendu leaves must vest with Gram Sabhas. District Mineral Foundations should support resource protection. Tiger reserves must allow co-management with no forced relocations. Rights of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups and single women must be expedited transparently. These reforms will foster community stewardship.

FRA rules affirm the supremacy of Gram Sabhas in CFR management. The Chhattisgarh Forest Department’s reported interference and misinterpretation of the NWPC as of June 25, 2025 challenge this vision. A facilitator role — backed by strategic reforms and clear Union-level guidance — is essential to truly empower communities. As Chhattisgarh awaits direction, upholding Gram Sabha autonomy is crucial to realising the FRA’s promise of justice and harmony.

Chitta Ranjan Pani is an independent researcher on livelihood and natural resource governance.

Views expressed are author's own and do not necessarily express those of Down To Earth.