The official memorandum issued recently by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) stating there was no provision under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) to seek the gram sabhas’ consent for diverting forest land undermines the law and violates one of its fundamental principles. At the centre of the currently followed procedure, which requires the consent of all the relevant gram sabhas for sanctioning a development project, is an assured safeguard for local livelihoods, community land rights, and cultural identity. This stipulation ensures that the proposed project does not harm the region’s environment or ecology, impacting the lives of forest-dependent communities who mostly belong to tribal groups. Crucially, the provision for the gram sabhas’ consent signifies representation of these communities. This is democratic decision-making on an issue that directly affects their lives.

A dilution of this requirement for consent would deprive the communities of their legal protection and enable the State and its agencies to commence development projects in forested and tribal areas against the wishes and interests of the people living there. It originates from a parliamentary committee’s proposal for project clearances that do not require the endorsement of all relevant gram sabhas. Citing logistical difficulties in securing consent across the gram sabhas, the committee sought to lower the consent threshold to 70-75%, which it called a “qualified super-majority”. It was claimed that the full-consent requirement delayed projects, at times for years. However, lowering the threshold opens procedures to manipulation – clearance could now be secured by ensuring the consent of gram sabhas that represent villages not directly impacted by the project. The villages most affected by the development could end up in the minority, and thus, their genuine objections could be overruled. Though the FRA does not clearly stipulate the requirement for permission from all gram sabhas, it aligns with the spirit of the law. Interpreting the law any other way defeats its intent.

Tribal rights organisations and Opposition parties have criticised MoTA’s move to distance itself from the issue – saying it falls outside the ministry’s purview – and demanded a withdrawal of the memorandum. The organisations contend that the ministry’s position favours big corporations. Questioning the argument against consent-related delays, they have noted that protracted official procedures also contribute to the pendency. Instead of diluting environmental laws and tribal rights, the government must strengthen them. It cannot let enforcement slip when these protections are under severe pressure on multiple fronts. (Source: DH)