Is this euphoria justified when we look at the interests of Indian farmers and workers? Seen together with a much criticised 2026 Union Budget by Farmers Unions and organisations. India is likely to witness more rounds of nationwide protests.

One,details of the agreement are not yet available. It is only when the full scope and details of the trade deal are available, one can make a proper assessment.

However, the announcement made by the US President Donald Trump on his
social media accounts indicate that Indian goods imports will face a 18 per cent tariff, while India reduces tariffs and non-tariff barriers on US goods to zero.

What does this one-sided deal mean? Eliminating tariffs will or may result in the flooding the country with US goods which will adversely affect industries and workers’ livelihoods. Removal of non-tariff barriers would mean eliminating subsidies and other measures, which protect and support Indian farmers.

Moreover. Trump has claimed that India has agreed to stop buying Russian oil and committed to buy $500 billion worth of US energy, technology and farm products. This, if true, shows up the highly unequal nature of the trade deal with India in a subordinate position, circumscribing its sovereignty.

Farmers unions, analysts and experts are now demanding that the government place the full trade agreement in the Parliament and in the public domain, so that there is a thorough discussion. Any harmful provisions must be rescinded to protect the interests of Indian industry, agriculture and working people.

Sharp Criticism of 2026 Union Budget, Agriculture Finds No Presence in the Union Budget by the All India Kisan Sanghatana (AIKS). Questioning the absence of any proposals for loan waivers and sharply criticising the reduction in fertilizer subsidy by Rs.15679 crores, the AIKS has called upon farmers to burn copies of the anti-farmer, anti-federal budget on February 3 across the country*

In a press note issued, AIKS states that, the Union Budget 2026-27 fails yet again to present any commitment towards the strategic regeneration of agriculture- the most crucial livelihood sector for the Indian people. Agriculture was largely ignored by the Finance Minister in her budget speech, small and marginal farmers were mentioned just once, while there was a conspicuous absence of any mention of rural labour. The budgetary figures echo this neglect.

According to the Economic Survey presented this week by the Union government, the average growth rate of agriculture in 2025 saw a fall. The growth rate registered in the previous quarter was 3.5 per cent, against the decadal average growth rate of 4.45 per cent.

Crop production witnessed the most drastic fall. Given this context of stagnation in the agriculture sector, it was expected that the Union Budget 2026-27 will deliver some relief and momentum. However, the Budget disappoints once again.

The total budget allocated to the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare at about 1.40 Lakh Cr., is just a 5.3 per cent increase in nominal terms from the Revised Estimate 2025-26. Accounting for inflation, this implies that the real allocation to agriculture has not seen any substantial growth.

The Economic Survey also recognised that the yield rates of various crops including cereals, maize, soybean, and pulses continue to trail behind the global averages, making Indian production uneconomic.

However, according to the AIKS. The Budget fails in terms of providing any additional support to boost agriculture research and development.

Despite the Finance Minister mentioning enhancing agriculture productivity as a kartavya, the budgetary allocation to the Department of Agricultural Research and Education has been reduced from 10281 crores Revised Estimate (RE) 2025-26 to 9967 crores (BE 2026-27).

The rhetoric on investing in cash crops continued even in this year’s budget. The speech underlined a focus on coconut, cocoa, cashew, nuts, and sandalwood. However, in reality, missions such as Cotton Technology Mission, Mission on Pulses, Hybrid Seeds, and Makhana Board, introduced in the past, find no mention in the budgetary figures.

Talking of relief to farmers, the budget presents no remarkable proposal. The subsidy on fertilizers has seen a reduction from 186460 crores (RE 2025-26) to 170781 crores (BE 2025-26). Food subsidy has also seen a reduction from the revised estimates of previous year.

There was no mention of the MGNREGS scheme or even the newly passed VB-GRamG scheme in the budget speech, which indicates the total dismissal of the significance of rural employment.

VB-GRamG scheme has been allocated 95692 crores; however, this allocation is subject to the clause of 40 per cent mandatory state funding. 60 percent of the allocated budget under VBGRamG is 57,415 crores, which is drastically less than the 88000 crores allocated to MGNREGS under RE 2025-26. This means for the new scheme to function at the previous level, State governments have to bear the burden of 38,277 crores!

As per the economic review 2025-26, the number of states with surplus has been reduced from 19 in 2018-19 to 11 in 2023-24. The states are demanding 50% share of the divisible pool but the 16th Finance Commission has proposed 41% only. The state governments without financial autonomy will not be able to find adequate funds to support the employment guarantee scheme and even the average 47 days of employment under MGNREGS will not be available for the rural people this year under VB GRAMG Act. It is a gross assault on the rural workers and peasants as well as violation of the federal rights. This is not acceptable to the peasantry.

AIKS: The only major announcement concerning rural employment was the Mahatma Gandhi Gram Swaraj Yojana, promoting village industries; however, no significant financial allocations were made.

Among the Agriculture and Allied sectors, the only significant budgetary allocation has been made under Animal Husbandry and Dairying, from 5303 crores (RE 2025-26) to 6135 crores (BE 2026-27). However, here again the thrust has been on expansion of credit-infused veterinary hospitals, breeding in the private sector and garnering foreign investments.

The AIKS has called upon the farmers, rural workers and the people at large to strongly protest against the anti-farmer, anti-worker, anti-federal budget by burning copies in villages and tehsils on February 3, 2026 or any subsequent day. AIKS also appeals to all to ensure the General Strike on February 12 will be a great success and will reflect the anger against the anti-people Union Budget 2026-27.

Related:

As heat waves intensify in India, some inspiring examples of how small budget efforts conserve water, big time

ASHA Union Demands Hike in NHM Funds in Union Budget 2025, Social Security Benefits

Thousands of NREGA workers urge Modi to resume work in West Bengal, contribute to State Budget

The post Indian Agriculture: Between the 2026 Union budget & US-India trade deal, a huge setback for Indian farmers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The ‘red flag’ march is being led by leaders of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and the All India Kisan Sabha. Just a week back, Adivasi farmers had protested –another 40-50,000 of them, after marching to the Collectorate, outside its office and making their demands plain in Palghar. Reports of that march may be read here.

A video may be seen here below.

आज किसान लॉंग मार्च इगतपुरी से ७ बजे शुरू होगी

The vibrant protest, in which several women also participated, was led by CPI(M) Polit Bureau member and AIKS National President Dr. Ashok Dhawale, former CPI(M) Central Committee member alongside former AIKS State President J.P Gavit, and ex-MLA, CPI(M) Central Committee member, State Secretary and AIKS National Joint Secretary Dr. Ajit Nawale,

Demands related to critical agricultural and labour issues have been raised. The statement released by the CPI (M)-AIKS said, “The march raised the issues related to neglecting the numerous assurances around the Forest Rights Act (FRA)—especially the finalisation of land claims,  and application of PESA, irrigation schemes, filling of thousands of vacancies in Zilla Parishad schools teachers, etc.”

“The second set of issues is centred around pro-corporate policies of the BJP-led Central and State Governments, like the smart meter scheme, undermining of  MNREGA and rural employment, land grab by the government-corporate nexus, the imposition of  four labour codes etc,” the CPI(M)-AIKS statement added.

Related:

50,000 strong Adivasi, farmers march from Charoti to Palghar, hold indefinite dharna for land rights

Kisan Long March ends with Fresh Promises to Farmers

The post Sea of red as CPI (M)-AIKS march leaves Nashik towards Mumbai, demands resolution of farmer and Adivasi issues appeared first on SabrangIndia.

For a country that saw the Bhopal Gas Tragedy and many such incidents where lack of regulation resulted in massive loss of human life and toll on victims that exists to date, this turnaround is rather surprising. That too, for it to have triggered by a judgement of the Supreme Court, an institution that has been a guardian of environment from the T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India case, where tree-felling and non-forestry activity in forests across the country was stopped by an order of the Supreme Court to the Niyamgiri hills case where indigenous Dongria Kondh tribe successfully fought against Vedanta Aluminium’s bauxite mining project, using the Forest Rights Act (FRA) 2006 to assert their cultural and religious rights over the sacred hills.[1]

Background: Tracing the Origins of “Prior” Clearance

To appreciate the magnitude of the conflict between the May 2025 and November 2025 Vanashakti judgments, it is essential to situate the dispute within the broader evolution of environmental constitutionalism in India.

In the wake of the 1972 Stockholm Conference and the catastrophic Bhopal Gas Tragedy of 1984, India developed a legal regime grounded in the “Precautionary Principle.” Interpreted by the Supreme Court as part of Article 21 (the Right to Life), this principle requires that environmental protection measures must anticipate, prevent, and address sources of environmental degradation before any damage occurs.

The principal mechanism for implementing this principle is the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) Notification. Introduced in 1994 and updated in 2006, the EIA framework mandates that certain industrial and infrastructure projects must secure “prior” Environmental Clearance (EC) before any construction begins. The underlying rationale is that any environmental harm, such as deforestation or wetland destruction, is often irreversible. If assessments are conducted post-construction, they serve merely as a bureaucratic formality, failing to achieve the goal of sustainable development.

However, a significant gap has emerged between this normative ideal and the realities of India’s rapid industrialization, ready crony land grab. Successive governments, prioritising the “Ease of Doing Business,” began to grant “ex post facto” (retrospective) clearances to projects that had already commenced operations unlawfully. This practice created a moral hazard—companies found it cheaper to violate the law and pay penalties later than to undergo the rigorous and time-consuming process of prior assessment. The Vanashakti litigation originated when the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) attempted to formalize this practice through a 2017 Notification and a 2021 Office Memorandum (OM), thereby turning what was intended as amnesty into a standard procedure.

The May 2025 Judgment: The Normative Firewall

On May 16, 2025, a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan delivered a judgment that aimed to uphold the “Rule of Law” over economic expediency.

Textualist Rigidity and the “Anathema” of Retrospection

The May judgment adopted a strict and literal interpretation of the EIA Notification 2006, holding that the requirement for “prior” EC is mandatory. Relying on precedents such as Common Cause v. Union of India (2017) and Alembic Pharmaceuticals v. Rohit Prajapati (2020), the bench emphasised that ex post facto clearances are “completely alien to environmental jurisprudence” and constitute an “anathema” to the EIA framework. Permitting operations without prior assessment, the Court reasoned, effectively condones violations. If EC is eventually denied after construction, the environmental harm is already irreversible; if granted, the “precautionary principle” is rendered meaningless.

The Sanctity of Executive Undertakings

The Court also scrutinised the legal history of the 2017 Notification, which had offered a six-month “amnesty” window for violators. When challenged before the Madras High Court, the Union Government had assured the court that this was a “one-time measure.” The May bench found that the subsequent 2021 OM—which perpetuated the amnesty indefinitely—breached this judicial undertaking. The Court held that the executive cannot renege on its assurance to the court, striking down the 2021 OM as arbitrary and violative of Article 14.[2]

Rejection of Monetary Regularisation

The May judgment explicitly rejected the notion that penalties under the “Polluter Pays Principle” could substitute for prior compliance. It noted that while Section 15 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 provides for penalties, it does not authorize the regularization of illegal structures. As a result, the Court held that even if penalties are paid, illegal constructions lacking prior clearance must be halted and demolished. The bench stressed that the “Polluter Pays Principle” cannot be twisted into a license to pollute.[3]

The November 2025 Review: The Pragmatic Recalibration

In a dramatic turnaround just six months later, a three-judge Review Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai (with Justice Bhuyan dissenting) set aside the May judgment.

 The “Per Incuriam” Doctrine and the Battle of Precedents

The Review Bench invoked the doctrine of per incuriam—rendered in ignorance of binding law—to overturn the May judgment. The majority held that the May Bench had failed to consider coordinate bench decisions in Electrosteel Steels Ltd. (2021)[4], Pahwa Plastics (2022)[5], and D. Swamy (2023)[6].

The May Bench had relied on Common Cause and Alembic to assert that ex-post facto EC is illegal. The Review Bench argued that while Alembic described such clearances as “anathema,” it ultimately allowed industries to continue operating after paying fines.

The Review Bench interpreted the relief granted in Alembic (allowing the industry to operate) as the binding principle of law, whereas the May Bench considered the relief as an exceptional measure under Article 142, treating the prohibition on retrospective EC as binding law.

Ultimately, by prioritising Electrosteel—which stated that the Environment Protection Act “does not prohibit” ex post facto clearance—over the strict reading of Common Cause, the Review Bench found the May judgment erroneous for ignoring the more recent “balanced approach” adopted by the Court.[7]

2. The Doctrine of “National Assets” and Sunk Costs

Economic consequences were a decisive factor in the Review Judgment. The Court accepted the Union’s argument that the May judgment would require the demolition of “national assets” valued at over ₹20,000 crore.[8]

The Court cited specific examples such as the AIIMS hospital in Odisha (962 beds) and the greenfield airport in Vijayanagar as projects facing potential demolition.[9]

The Review Bench further argued that demolishing these large-scale projects would cause more environmental damage (from dust and debris) than allowing them to remain operational. The Court rhetorically questioned whether demolishing effluent treatment plants would truly benefit environmental protection.[10] This reasoning, in effect, used environmental concerns to justify non-enforcement of environmental law.

Statutory Flexibility

Contrary to the May judgment, the Review Bench held that Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act does not mandate demolition. The Act, according to the Review Bench, allows for flexibility, and the executive can “amend or modify” notifications as needed.[11] Thus, the 2021 OM was not seen as violating the “one-time” judicial undertaking but as a valid exercise of executive power, especially as it was issued following directions from the National Green Tribunal (NGT).

Analytical Critique: The Erosion of Certainty

The rapid shift between the Vanshakti verdicts reveals a deep schism within India’s environmental constitutionalism. While the Review Judgment saved billions in investment, it set a precarious precedent that undermines the rule of law in three key areas.

The Inversion of Stare Decisis (Precedent)

The main issue with the Review Judgment is its handling of precedent. Justice Bhuyan’s dissent pointed out that Electrosteel and Pahwa—relied on by the Review Bench—were two-judge bench decisions, as was Common Cause, which formed the foundation of the May judgment and offered a comprehensive interpretation of the EIA Notification.

The Review Bench declared the May judgment per incuriam for not following Electrosteel, but the dissent argued that Electrosteel itself was per incuriam for disregarding the binding principle established in Common Cause.[12]

The Review Bench’s position—that the relief granted in Alembic (allowing industries to continue) constitutes binding laws jurisprudentially problematic. The Supreme Court often uses its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to grant case-specific relief while maintaining a contrary legal principle. By elevating discretionary relief to binding precedent, the Review Judgment effectively legalises violations, signaling to lower courts that statutory prohibitions on retrospective clearance can be ignored when economic stakes are high.

The Institutionalisation of Fait Accompli

The Review Judgment entrenches the doctrine of Fait Accompli in Indian law, suggesting that violations on a sufficiently large scale become practically irreversible.

By explicitly referencing the ₹20,000 crore investment as a justification for recall, the Court signaled that the “Right to Environment” is subordinate to the “Right to Investment.” This creates a dangerous incentive for developers to proceed with construction and heavy investments before obtaining clearance, believing that courts will hesitate to order the destruction of “national assets.”

Moreover, the reasoning that demolition itself would cause pollution effectively shields all large-scale illegal infrastructure from enforcement. The further along illegal construction is, the more “environmentally damaging” it becomes to remove, thus guaranteeing its persistence. This undermines the “Precautionary Principle,” which is based on prevention rather than after-the-fact remediation.

Simply put, if the municipality of a city refrains from demolishing the encroachment buildings on banks of lakes, the city will be prone to flood and is exposed to more vulnerabilities than before. Vanshakti II judgement fully fails to engage with this very obvious and basic logic.

Conclusion: From Gatekeeper to Toll Collector

The shift from the May judgment to the November Review marks a transformation in the Supreme Court’s role in environmental governance. The May judgment sought to act as a Gatekeeper, upholding the “Prior Clearance” requirement to prevent environmental degradation before it occurs. In contrast, the Review Judgment recasts the Court as a Toll Collector, allowing violations to continue in exchange for fines and remedial actions.

While the Review Judgment provides a practical solution to the immediate issue of “stranded assets” such as the Odisha AIIMS and the Vijayanagar Airport, it causes enduring harm to the credibility of India’s environmental regulatory regime. It endorses the executive’s strategy of “dilution by notification,” where statutory mandates are weakened to accommodate industrial needs. Most significantly, it undermines the finality of Supreme Court judgments, implying that even environmentally protective verdicts can be recalled if the economic arguments are persuasive enough.

For developers, the message is unambiguous: compliance is optional, so long as one can afford the cost of post-facto forgiveness.

Amen.

(The author is part of the legal research team of the organization)

[1] Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd vs Ministry Of Environment & Forest &Ors, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 180 of 2011

[2] Para 30, Vanshakti v. Union of India 2025 INSC 718 (Vanshakti I)

[3] Para 27, Vanshakti I

[4] Electrosteel Steels Limited v. Union of India and Others  (2023) 6 SCC 615

[5] Pahwa Plastics Private Limited and Another v. Dastak NGO and Others (2023) 12 SCC 774

[6] D. Swamy v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board and Others (2023) 20 SCC 469

[7] Para 55.1, CREDAI vs. Vankshakti 2025 INSC 1326 (Vanshakti II)

[8] Para 108, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[9] Paras 109, 110, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[10] Para 7 (VIII), Vanshakti II (Justice K. Vinod Chandran)

[11] Para 75, Vanshakti II (CJI Gavai)

[12] Para 20, Vanshakti II (Justice Bhuyan)

Related:

Cries for Environmental Justice: India at a low 176/180 countries in the 2024 Environmental Performance Index

June 5: World environment day & the increasing importance of seed conservation by farmers and rural communities

Strengthening indigenous communities means protection of the environment 

The post The Judicial Ouroboros: The Vanashakti Reversal & Crisis of Environmental Finality in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Protesters are mostly from the tribal communities of Palghar district. They had started their trek towards the collectorate, demanding better implementation of land rights, reinstatement of the MGNREGA, cancellation of the Vadhavan port and availability of water for drinking and irrigation purposes, among others. Accompanied by protest songs on microphones, striding purposefully with CPI-M flags and banners, chanting slogans, protesters reached the Collectorate office of Palghar on the evening of January 20, where they plan to camp until their demands are met – the most longstanding of which is the enforcement of land rights. Adivasis have been tilling forest and grazing land for centuries but still don’t own the plots they cultivate.

The Forest Rights Act, 2006, vests forest land and resource rights in Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have resided in such areas for generations. Gram sabhas initiate claims, verified through sub-divisional and district committees, protecting dwellers from eviction until their rights are settled. But most of the tribal farmers at the rally have not had their claims approved. The last time that farmers marched in their thousands was from Nashik to Azad Maidan in Mumbai, a stretch of 180 kilometres with several marchers barefoot.

Mass organisations All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), All India Democratic Women’s Association (AIDWA), Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) and Student’s Federation of India (SFI) and Adivasi Adhikar Rashtriya Manch (AARM) have also joined this March in huge numbers. Beginning the long walk on January 19, the marchers have reached the Palghar Collectorate where they were denied permission for the dharna inside the Collectorate. Undettered they have begun the indefinite protests outside.

Citizens for Justice and Peace has long analysed national and international law on Farmers Rights. Some of these may be read here and here.

The March is being led by CPI (M) Polit Bureau member and AIKS National President Dr Ashok Dhawale, Polit Bureau member and AIDWA National General Secretary Mariam Dhawale, Central Committee member, state secretary and AIKS National Joint Secretary Dr Ajit Nawale, Central Committee member and CITU State Secretary Vinod Nikole, two-term MLA from Dahanu, State Secretariat member and AARM State Convenor Kiran Gahala, and many others. Later CPI (M) Polit Bureau member and AIKS National General Secretary Vijoo Krishnan also joined the March.

1 of 8

According to Palghar Police officials, as reported in The Hindu, around 30,000 protesters joined the long march. The demands include full implementation of the Forest Rights Act, the Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas Act PESA, revival of the Jal Jeevan Mission scheme to provide work, cancellation of the smart meter scheme, appointment to all the vacant posts in the government service of Palghar district, providing the benefits of the Gharkul scheme, and cancellation of the development of Vadhavan and Murbe ports.

CPI (M)’s women wing State secretary Prachi Hatiwlekar told the newspaper, “This struggle is age-old, starting from bonded labour to now working for long pending issue of land ownership transfer. Central government is only trying to dilute the Forest Rights Act.”

The protesters are also articulate and vocal against the smart metres, media reports indicate. They want that the government reinstall old meters and instruct their officials not to impose smart meters. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL) rolled out the smart meters in 2021, which automatically record real-time power consumption and send the data to the electricity distribution company. However, the device has been criticised for bill hike, no consent for installation, and poor awareness about tariff changes.

Read this story on smart metres here

The protest shows discontent among tribal communities over land ownership, large infrastructure projects in the district and changes to MGNREGA. All the protesters unanimously reiterated that unless and until “we don’t get all our papers stamped, we won’t go home”.

Related:

Kisan Long March ends with Fresh Promises to Farmers

The post 50,000 strong Adivasi, farmers march from Charoti to Palghar, hold indefinite dharna for land rights appeared first on SabrangIndia.

December 13, 2025 also marks two decades (twenty years) of the passage of this historic law that was enacted after nearly a decade or more campaign by forest rights’ and Adivasi groups across the country. On this occasion of the 20th Anniversary of the Forest Rights Act, national campaign coordination organisations (like NRCCJ) have extended extend our heartfelt appreciation to all those, including, parliamentarians, intellectuals, and organisations whose collective efforts made this landmark legislation possible. The Act stands as a historic step to redress past injustices and to democratize forest governance and management, ensuring dignity, rights, and justice for forest-dwelling communities.

The FRA 2006 formally came into force on December 31, 2007, but initially excluded Jammu & Kashmir. Following the abrogation of Article 370, the Act was extended to the Union Territory on October 31, 2019 through the J&K Reorganisation Act, 2019. Formal implementation began in September 2021, and the State Forest Department was designated as the nodal agency. While the extension of the Act was welcomed by local groups and intellectuals, concerns were raised about entrusting implementation to the Forest Department, given its questionable historical role in restricting customary and traditional rights of forest dwellers.

Union of India’s contradictory stances over two decades

To recall these contradictory pulls, when the Government of India was drafting legislation to recognise tribal forest rights, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change made several attempts to be the nodal ministry. However, the Campaign for Survival and Dignity—a coalition of tribal groups and intellectuals—strongly opposed this, arguing that a ministry associated with past injustices should not oversee the Act. Their advocacy led to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) being designated as the nodal ministry in 2006, through amendments to the Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules, 1961.

Despite this, in many states and UTs, Forest Departments continued to act as shadow nodal agencies. The consequences have been stark:

• Out of 4.79 million Individual Forest Rights (IFR) claims, 1.47 million were rejected.
• For Community Forest Rights (CFR), the rejection rate stands at 9.56%, with states like Uttarakhand and West Bengal recording rejection rates above 90%.
• In states/UTs including Jammu & Kashmir, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, more than 50% of IFR claims have been rejected.

These figures highlight how the lack of awareness has enabled Forest Departments to dismiss or dilute claims, undermining the spirit of the Act.

In this context on the twenty years anniversary of this historic law, these steps by administration’s like Jammu and Kashmir (J and K) remain significant.

The Notification by the J and K administration may be read here

Letter dated December 3, 2025 by AIUWFP to District Magistrate Ms.Indu Kanwal Chib, District Bandipora J&K regarding the Implementation of Forest Rights Act in District Bandipora J&K may be read here. (https://dipr.jk.gov.in/Prnv?n=21737)

Related:

AIUFWP helps Dudhi villagers file Forest Land Claims under FRA

Forest Land Claims filed in Chitrakoot: AIUFWP and CJP make history!

Struggle for Forest Rights in India stretches from East to West

The post 20 years of FRA 2006, J and K appoints Tribal Ministry as Nodal agency appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In its scathing critique, the AIKS has said that the Draft Seeds Bill 2025 is poised to increase the cost of cultivation by allowing corporates to indulge in unchecked pricing of seeds; besides the all-India farmers organisation said that bringing in this law is a move to corporatise India’s seed sector and concede seed sovereignty

Elaborating further, SKM leaders said the draft Seed Bill surrendered the seed sovereignty of India and it was aimed at predatory pricing by the corporate monopolies. They have asked that the Centre should withdraw the Bill. The SKM also warned against “conceding on harmful clauses” in the summit to be held in Lima, Peru from November 24 to 29 on the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA).

Federalism, Federal rights

The campaign pitch to be launched will be all-encompassing. The leaders said the SKM would launch a national campaign with the slogan of “Strong States for Strong India” to safeguard the federal rights of States demanding increase of State share in the divisive pool (including cess and surcharge) from the current 31% to 60%. The SKM would also demand that the Goods and Services Tax Act must be amended to reinstate taxation power of States. “Financial autonomy of the States is necessary to realise minimum support price and minimum wage through augmenting public investment to modernise agriculture, build agro-industries and share the surplus out of processing, value addition and trade on all crops, thus to end agrarian crisis, peasant suicides and distress migration,” the SKM said.

The leaders said November 26, 2025 marked the fifth year of the beginning of the farmers’ struggle on the Delhi borders. “Sacrificing the lives of 736 martyrs, the protracted struggle of 380 days forced the BJP-led NDA union government to repeal the three pro-corporate and anti-people farm laws. Though five years have passed, Prime Minister Narendra Modi just formed a committee, but yet to implement the written assurances on MSP at the rate of C2+50% (as per M.S. Swaminathan Committee report), debt relief and privatisation of electricity given to SKM on December 9, 2021,” they said. The SKM would organise meetings, rallies and conventions to support its demands on November 26.

The All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS) in its condemnation of the proposed law has termed it “anti-farmer and part of the larger political project of the RSS-BJP to dispossess the small farmers and surrender India’s seed sovereignty to a handful of multinational and domestic monopolies.”

AIKS has also pointed out in a statement issued by office bearers Ashok Dhawale and Vijoo Krishnan that the RSS-BJP-led NDA government is pushing this extremely pro-corporate bill at a time when the agrarian crisis is deepening in India. Several scientific studies have established that the increasing corporate control on agriculture would intensify the agrarian crisis and farm suicides. The draft Bill has the necessary ingredients to accelerate the squeezing and looting of Indian farmers. For instance, this law would create a conducive atmosphere for monopolies to indulge in an unchecked pricing of seeds.

Besides, expanding its criticism further the AIKS ha stated that any new legislation regarding seeds — such as the draft Seeds Bill 2025 — must actively complement, not conflict with, the progressive legal safeguards already established under the PPVFR (Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right) Act 2001, and India’s international commitments under the CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity) and the ITPGRFA (International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture). These national and international commitments collectively uphold national sovereignty over genetic resources and protect indigenous varieties. They thus recognize farmers as breeders, conservers and rightful custodians of biodiversity with guaranteed rights to save, use, exchange and sell seeds.

In contrast, the draft Seeds Bill 2025 introduces a heavily centralised (and corporatized) regulatory system that risks weakening farmer-centred protection and diluting India’s legal architecture for biodiversity conservation and farmers’ rights. The draft appears to favour market control and stringent formalization of seed systems, potentially marginalizing indigenous varieties, public institutions and national/international seed networks. To be precise, the new draft of the Seeds Bill 2025 deviates India’s regulatory architecture on seeds substantially away from the provisions of the PPVFR Act 2001 and actively shifts the balance in the seed sector in favour of big corporate players.

The weeks and months ahead are likely to see campaigns and agitations against this draft law build up nationally.

Related:

Protest decision of Union Government to Scrap 11% Import Duty on Raw Cotton: AIKS

Unseasonal Rains: Over 80 Dead, Huge Damage to Crops, Orchards; AIKS Demands Ex-Gratia

AIKS, Karshaka Sangham and rubber farmers take on tyre cartel; file Intervention Application (IA) in Supreme Court

The post Draft Seeds Bill must be withdrawn: SKM, AIKS appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Tharu Community and Dudhwa National Park

In the Palia Tehsil area of Lakhimpur Kheri district resides the Tharu community, known for its rich cultural heritage and deep-rooted connection to nature. Recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in 1967, most Tharu families depend heavily on forest resources for their livelihood, including bamboo, sugarcane, timber, and other forest produce.

The Tharu community inhabits around 40 villages situated in and around the Dudhwa National Park, which was established in 1977. The subsequent declaration of Dudhwa as a Tiger Reserve further intensified restrictions on land use and access to forest resources for local residents.

Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purposes) provides that:

“Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing—
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression ‘reserved forest’ in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose.”

While this law was intended to prevent the diversion of forest land, its rigid implementation in Dudhwa effectively displaced the Tharu population from their traditional habitats. Following the creation of the National Park and Tiger Reserve, many Tharu villages found themselves enclosed within or adjacent to protected forest zones, leading to the loss of access to ancestral lands and essential resources.

Forest Rights Act, 2006 and Criminalisation of the Tharu Tribe

The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) (attached below) recognises and vests the rights of forest-dwelling communities by providing a legal framework through which they can claim ownership over land, forest resources, and livelihoods. It was enacted to undo the historical injustice faced by Adivasi and traditional forest-dependent communities who were excluded from forest governance for decades.

Section 4(2) of the FRA provides that:

“The forest rights recognised under this Act in critical wildlife habitats of National Parks and Sanctuaries may subsequently be modified or resettled, provided that no forest rights holders shall be resettled or have their rights in any manner affected for the purposes of creating inviolate areas for wildlife conservation.”

However, in practice, these provisions were ignored. The Tharu community was arbitrarily denied their forest rights, including the right to collect firewood, graze cattle, and access forest produce, despite fulfilling all statutory criteria. In 2012, when members of the Tharu tribe petitioned the court demanding recognition of their rights, the Forest Department responded by filing thousands of fabricated “forest crime” cases against them.

As reported by The Times of India, BJP MLA Romi Sahani from Palia constituency stated that “they filed cases not only against those who went into the forest, but also people who never left home, the physically incapable, and even the dead.”

Over the years, the Tharu community has continued to face bureaucratic harassment and administrative pressure, resulting in the systematic erosion of the rights guaranteed to them under the FRA. Seventy-year-old Badhana Devi recounts, “If we raise our voices or refuse to pay when officers come, we are threatened with new cases.”

In 2020, the District Level Committee (DLC) further rejected the Tharu community’s forest rights claims, disregarding the explicit provisions of the FRA, which confer rights irrespective of the revenue status of a village. (See CJP’s previous coverage: “Vested Rights under Threat: Tharu Tribe Petitions High Court against Administrative Harassment”)

These instances illustrate a clear misuse of statutory powers and administrative authority, effectively stripping the Tharu community of their constitutionally protected rights under the pretext of performing “official duties.” What was meant to be a restorative statute has instead become a tool of persecution, deepening the community’s marginalisation.

Misuse of Conservation Laws across India

Over the years, similar patterns of criminalisation of Adivasi and tribal groups have been witnessed across India. In Uttarakhand, for instance, the Van Gujjars were evicted from their homes as part of a drive to ‘clear encroachments on forest property’. They invoked their right to inhabit forest land under Section 3 of the FRA, 2006 (read below). Further, Section 4 of the Act clearly states that, in cases where these members are residing in critical wildlife areas and National Parks, it is important first to rehabilitate them, to provide them a secure livelihood.

The Uttarakhand High Court, through an interim order, upheld the Van Gujjars’ right to migrate to their summer homesteads and held that any attempt to evict them would violate Article 21 of the Constitution as well as their rights under the FRA, 2006.

In the Hoshangabad district of Madhya Pradesh, the Adivasi tribes such as the Korkus and Rajbhars have faced similar ordeals. At Itarsi, the Central Proof Range was established as a testing ground for armaments and ammunition, leading the government to acquire vast stretches of forest land and displace Adivasi and Dalit families. The concept of ‘protected forests’ was further expanded under Section 4(2) of the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 (attached below), to include land used for strategic or defence projects and paramilitary camps. These exemptions and definitional ambiguities are now frequently misused by the government to bypass conservation obligations and to criminalise local communities.

Perhaps the most alarming example lies in the implementation of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Under the pretext of ‘conservation’, the Act has criminalised essential livelihood practices of forest dwellers, such as collecting mahua, grazing cattle, and fishing. Entry into these lands itself became a punishable offence. A report by the Criminal Justice and Public Accountability Project (CPA) reveals that most offences registered against Adivasi communities were categorised as ‘threats to ecological security and animal habitats’, often without any specific allegations.

Further, forest dwellers and Adivasis continue to face evictions through industrialisation and mining projects. The mineral-rich states of Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand are particularly affected. To facilitate mineral extraction, the standard state response has been to first declare forest land as ‘protected’ under the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023, and then evict its inhabitants in the name of ‘conservation’. This systematic process not only undermines the FRA’s purpose but also perpetuates the cycle of dispossession and displacement of forest communities.

Legal Framework: Setting a Precedent for the Tharu Position

The judicial trajectory surrounding forest rights has consistently reinforced the constitutional legitimacy and welfare-oriented purpose of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. As seen in the preceding instances, from the Tharu community in Uttar Pradesh to the Van Gujars of Uttarakhand and the Adivasi groups in Madhya Pradesh, the administrative machinery has often undermined the FRA’s intent through procedural denials and criminalisation. However, Indian courts have, on several occasions, upheld the protective spirit of the FRA and reaffirmed the rights of forest-dwelling communities.

In Wildlife First v. Union of India, 2019 (read below),  the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the FRA, recognising it as a vital mechanism for securing the livelihoods and cultural identity of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. The Court underscored that the Act does not weaken forest conservation but instead democratises it by empowering local communities as custodians of the environment.

Similarly, in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests & Ors., 2013, concerning the proposed bauxite mining project in the Niyamgiri Hills, the Supreme Court upheld the Ministry’s decision to deny forest clearance. The Court found that the project violated both the FRA and the customary rights of the Dongria Kondh tribe, whose spiritual and cultural ties to the Niyamgiri Hills were constitutionally protected.
In paragraph 43 of the judgment (attached below), the Court characterised the FRA as a “social welfare or remedial statute” designed to recognise and vest forest rights. The legislative intent, it observed, is unambiguously to safeguard the customs, usages, and traditional practices of forest dwellers. The judgment further emphasised that under the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) (read below), particularly Section 4(d), the Gram Sabha is entrusted with the duty to preserve and protect tribal traditions, cultural identity, and community resources.

This landmark ruling thus establishes a jurisprudential framework that directly supports the claims of the Tharu petitioners. Their ongoing struggle to secure recognition of their Community Forest Resources (CFRs) in the Terai region echoes the Dongria Kondhs’ defence of their sacred landscapes. The same legal reasoning: recognition of customary rights, participatory decision-making through the Gram Sabha, and the FRA’s remedial purpose, should guide judicial interpretation in the Tharu case as well.

Constitutional Implication: Articles 14, 21, and 300A

The arbitrary usage of the Indian Forest Act and Wildlife (Protection) Act, to arrest and detain Tharu Tribe members, under the guise of ‘protecting wildlife and natural habitat’, violates equality and liberty guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. The forest officials particularly target people belonging to Scheduled Tribes, who often lack legal and financial recourse to raise their voices. The FIRs are filed without looking at the facts of the circumstance (as in the case of Surdas Ram Bhajan), and any sort of resistance is framed as insurgency. Therefore, non-arbitrariness, which is at the heart of Article 14, is violated.

Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. The FRA helps secure the right to life for forest-dwelling communities by protecting their ability to earn a livelihood from the forest. The petitioners argue that non-conferment of their forest rights is a violation of Article 21, and a further perpetuation of historical injustice, against which the FRA was meant to protect.

Article 300A of the Constitution protects the right of an individual to not be deprived of their property, secured by the authority of law. The Adivasis and Tharu tribe members are forced into a system of private/state property, as a result of unsettled land rights and lack of clear demarcations. The logic holds that any land that is not owned by individuals automatically becomes state property.

Thus, the 4000 cases against Tharu Community members violate their right to life, equality and property.

Conclusion and Way Forward

The core purpose of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 was to rectify the “historical injustice” committed against forest-dwelling communities, particularly Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers, whose customary rights to forest lands and resources were denied during the colonial period and, regrettably, even after independence (as reiterated in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests).

In the case of the Tharu community, the lands they had long inhabited were declared “forest land” or designated as “protected areas” for wildlife conservation, disregarding their traditional conservation practices and deep ecological dependence on forest resources.

The extensive rights guaranteed under the FRA remain largely unrealised due to the excessive control exercised by forest officials, whose discretion often renders these legal protections ineffective in practice. Furthermore, the recent Forest Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2023, has weakened the FRA’s intent by allowing the Union Government to grant forest clearances even before the rights of forest-dwelling communities are settled or their consent obtained. This legal overlap has created a dangerous precedent where conservation is invoked to justify dispossession.

These developments also highlight how state machinery, including the Police and Forest Departments, disproportionately target communities residing in and around forest areas, a significant proportion of whom belong to Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes.

The petition submitted by Santari Ram Rana and Sadai before the Allahabad High Court exposes this subtle yet pervasive bureaucratic violence embedded within law. Unlike overt forms of repression, this harm is inflicted quietly through administrative procedures, documentation, and regulatory control, reflecting a colonial mindset that continues to view forests as needing protection from the very people who have protected them for generations.

While the writ petition remains pending before the High Court, members of the Tharu community must continue asserting their legal and cultural rights, drawing inspiration from the Van Gujjars of Uttarakhand and the Adivasi movements in Hoshangabad. Only through sustained advocacy, awareness, and judicial engagement can the original spirit of the Forest Rights Act be truly realised.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Shyamli Pengoriya)

Related

Vested Rights under Threat: Tharu tribe petitions High Court against administrative harassment

Forest Conservation Amendment Act, 2023: A challenge to Adivasi land rights and environmental protections

U’khand Forest Dept admits faults in eviction notices issued to Van Gujjars

Forest Conservation Rules, 2022- An overview of changes that snatch rights of Gram Sabhas

Sokalo Gond and Nivada Rana lead the campaign for Forest Rights in SC

Tribals Allege Officials Use Forest Rights Act to Harass, Demand Money; Picket DM’s Office

The post When Conservation Becomes Coercion: The silent violence faced by the Tharus of Kheri appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Forest Rights Act was passed in 2006 following decades of struggle by forest-working peoples to redress the exclusionary legacy of colonial and post-colonial forest laws. The FRA acknowledges the rights of individual and community access to land, housing, and to minor forest produce, and grants the Gram Sabhas authority to manage and protect forests. The intent of the FRA was to transfer authority from the centralised forest-administrative bodies (like the Forest Department) to local communities and to make the Gram Sabha’s consent a precondition for the approval of any forest diversion. And de-centralisation was recognised as key to protection of both land rights and forest protection.

The Forest (Conservation) Act, enacted in 1980 –and hurriedly amended in 2023 without debate– has a centralised approach to conservation and, following amendments in 2023, has gone further still to consolidate centralized control over forest land. The amendments narrowed the definition of the term “forest” and included broad exemptions for strategic and commercial projects, and also authorised the regularization of diversions under the law. The amendments to the FCA have dismantled community consultation, removed environmental protection, and ultimately weakened the requirements to divert land from indigenous peoples in favour of land acquisition for development. The FCA now enables diversion of forest land for national security and infrastructure development, particularly in border areas, and weakened the requirement for Gram Sabha consent, designed to make community consultation a formality after the diversion has occurred.

It is crucial at this junction to recall the eviction order, passed by the Supreme Court in February 2019 that became the ground for nationwide and lasting protests by forest dwellers and Adivasis. The intent and impact of the order would have been to displace as many as one crore forest community members. Hence, its passage became yet another pivotal moment in the struggle for land and forest rights in India. The order triggered mobilisation among Adivasi and forest community members and immediate civil society response at the nation level, notably the All India Union of Forest Working Peoples (AIUFWP) and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Within two weeks, national civil society intervention (close to a dozen and a half interim applications were finally filed) led to the Court staying its eviction order. This move was also necessitated after an affidavit, filed by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs that requested a full reconsideration of the case. The matter still awaits hearing before the Supreme Court, and demonstrates the ongoing struggle over the rights of statutory recognition against conservation. On October 24, 2025, again, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MOTA) has –once more–sharply rebutted a plea which has challenged before the Supreme Court (SC) the legal validity of the 2012 Rules, made under the law, The Indian Express has learnt. In a counter affidavit filed before the SC in the same matter, the Centre has not only defended the legal validity of the Act but also stressed that the law goes beyond mere land ownership regularisation and aims to restore dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identity of forest-dependent communities.

AIUFWP is a national, women-led membership union representing forest-dwelling communities, agricultural workers, and Adivasis. It creates leadership for grassroots communities, especially among Adivasi women, advocates for distributive justice, and works with stakeholders across India to secure legalisation and recognition of community based customary forest rights. CJP operates as a legal rights and advocacy organisation, in close alliance with the AIUWFP by supporting ground-level training and legal interventions. CJP is both drafter and co-petitioner in the detailed interlocutory application (IA) filed before the Supreme Court in 2019. This IA detailed the historic disenfranchisement of India’s indigenous peoples that led to the enactment of the 2006 law, the systemic grievances with claims being denied, due process failings and the deliberate bypassing of Gram Sabhas, and violations of the statute scheme for the Forest Rights Act, 2006 by the forest administration. It also emphasised that mass evictions (not mandated in the law itself) were without constitutional justification and violated natural justice and legal protections.

In the follow-up hearings, the Supreme Court, going well beyond its original order, required states to file affidavits investigating state processes concerning the assessment of forest rights claims and about claims that were denied altogether. Determining whether community land rights are properly granted is now a question of what the Court would deem sufficient transparency in state action.

Apart from this crucial matter (Wildlife First, in which Adivasi unions and others have intervened), at the same time, the apex court of India –another bench–is considering challenges to amendments made to the Forest (Conservation) Act enacted hurriedly in 2023, which would broaden the chasm between statutory protection (under the FRA 2006) and state sovereignty (under the FCA). As publicly noted in one of the recent bench observations, the principle basis for halting mass evictions focused on the unresolved policy and law contradiction between the tenurial and welfare entitlements granted by the Forest Rights Act and the hard restrictions allegedly imposed for sake of conservation by the Forest (Conservation) Act. Thus, this continuing litigation is sitting at the crossroads of India’s obligations—to forest-dwelling peoples and conservation—creating a tension and dispute between rights-based justice and regulatory control the recurrent subject for adjudication in the future.

Criticism of the FCA amendments is directed specifically to their consequences in the North-East, where a multitude of forests are not recognised officially by the state yet serve as crucial in-state clearings for indigenous communities or communities in general. The amendments have bypassed (pushed aside) Gram Sabhas, authorised less participatory governance, and fostered concerns regarding green credits and monoculture afforestation. The Godavarman judgment (1996) expanded the definition of “forest” to include unclassified and community forests; however, the newly repealed law does not recognise large areas subject to exploitation.

The approach of the Supreme Court has fluctuated over the years: see for example the direction of the Wildlife First case, and then the Niyamgiri judgment acknowledged consent from Gram Sabhas prior to forest diversion. Nevertheless, the legal condition for indigenous rights is presently ambiguous and somewhat unpredictable on fore use, where the discretion of execution has taken priority over community rights and constitutional guarantees.

The exclusion of indigenous communities from forest governance has a historical precedent, as far back as colonial rule where laws regarded them as encroachers instead of custodians of land and resources. The FRA can be understood as an acknowledgement and a corrective action towards this injustice, recognising the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers to land, resources, and self-governance. The FRA was a multifaceted, energising outcome for these communities after decades of mobilising their rights and advocating for their access to and enjoyment of forests as an acknowledgment of their livelihoods and to democratise forest governance and restore dignity to marginalised communities.

In many ways, the expansion of centralised governance through The Forest (Conservation) Act has been legitimized via the Supreme Court’s Godavarman judgement of 1996, an important case that greatly expanded the administrative definition – and control over the meaning of “forest.” Centralization directly contradicts the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), which creates firm ground for a decentralised, community-based rights agenda of forest management. The tension is not simply administrative or logistical but is an observed and constitutionally established tension in the power relationship between the executive and authoritative and empowered Gram Sabhas, flooring the foundational conflict of purpose between development, conservation, and indigenous rights.

The Godavarman judgment explicitly stated, “…the word ‘forest’ must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act. The term ‘forest land’, occurring in Section 2, will not only include ‘forest’ as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the government record irrespective of the ownership.” (Godavarman v UOI, 1996). By contrast, the FRA 2006 frames the legal mandate as, “…to recognize and vest the forest rights and occupation in forest land in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in such forests for generations but whose rights could not be recorded; in order to correct the historical injustice done to the forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who are integral to the very survival and sustainability of the forest ecosystem.”

The 2023 FCA amendments, with a narrower definition of what qualifies as “forest,” and less opportunity for Gram Sabha participation, are yet another movement towards executive power, effectively disenfranchising the FRA’s commitment to decentralisation and democracy. This constitutional tension is yet to be resolved and is at the forefront of ongoing litigation and policy discussions concerning forest governance, development priorities, and the protection of indigenous and community rights.

Conclusion

There is an urgent need for a renewed and comprehensive framework that reconciles the inherent community and historic rights of communities over land/the commons and those of “the state” that seeks to unilaterally claim land for corporate development. Such a people’s right driven scheme would be one that upholds constitutional protections, revives community governance, and ensures community participation in environmental assessments. It will take the reversal of community jurisdiction and accountability of the state to limit logging in India’s forests, and the Supreme Court’s intervention could be a new beginning. India will only be able to protect its forests when it also protects the rights of those who have historically cared for them; by reaffirming the primacy of Gram Sabhas, transparency in impact assessments, and a stronger legal basis for rights recognition.

(The legal research team of CJP consists of lawyers and interns; this resource has been worked on by Urvi Kehri)

Image Courtesy: business-standard.com

References:

• India: Legacies and Challenges of the Land & Forest Rights Movement Booklet
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-conservation-amendment-act-2023-a-challenge-to-adivasi-land-rights-and-environmental-protections/
• https://cjp.org.in/what-is-the-forest-rights-act-2006-and-how-are-we-defending-it/
• https://cjp.org.in/sokalo-gond-and-nivada-rana-lead-the-campaign-for-forest-rights-in-sc/
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-rights-case-sc-directs-states-to-file-compliance-affidavits/
• https://cjp.org.in/forest-conservation-amendment-bill-north-east-to-bear-the-brunt/
• https://thewire.in/environment/the-forest-rights-act-and-the-battle-for-indias-forests
• https://www.scobserver.in/cases/constitutionality-of-the-frawildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment-eviction-of-forest-dwellers-background/
• https://www.sanctuarynaturefoundation.org/article/the-forest-%28conservation%29-amendment-act%2C-2023
• https://www.scobserver.in/journal/the-amended-green-law-is-full-of-red-flags-forests-amendment-act-2023/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/arguments-on-february-28th-2019/
• https://www.scobserver.in/reports/wildlife-first-v-ministry-of-forest-and-environment-eviction-of-forest0dwellers-arguments-on-september-12th-2019/
• Godavarman v UOI, 1996, Supreme Court of India

The post Supreme Court examines Forest Rights Act 2006 versus Conservation Law, makes national headlines appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The primary objective of the International Day of Rural Women is to recognize and honor the contributions of women in rural areas to agriculture, food security, natural resource management, and rural development. The United Nations General Assembly formally established this day on October 15, 2007, following a proposal at the 1995 Beijing Women’s Conference. Being celebrated one day before World Food Day (October 16), it underscores the crucial role rural women play in food production and security.

​Rural women constitute approximately 43% of the global agricultural labor force. They are the backbone of farming, livestock rearing, water harvesting, seed conservation, and local food systems. Despite their tireless efforts, they often lack equal access to land ownership, education, healthcare, credit, and technology.

​In India, this day provides an opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of women farmers (Mahila Kisan), Self-Help Groups (SHGs), rural entrepreneurs, and voluntary organizations. India has made numerous constitutional, legal, social, and economic efforts towards women’s empowerment. The Constitution guarantees women equal rights and opportunities, such as Article 14 (equality before law), Articles 15(1) and 15(3) (prohibition of gender-based discrimination), Article 16 (equal opportunity in public employment), Article 39(a) and 39(d) (livelihood and equal pay for equal work), and Article 42 (maternity relief and just work conditions).

​Key legislation like the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006, and the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (amended in 2017) have been enacted to protect women’s rights and safety. The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments mandate one-third reservation for women in Panchayats and municipal bodies, with several states increasing this to 50 percent. Furthermore, the Women’s Reservation Bill, 2023 (Nari Shakti Vandan Adhiniyam), passed by the Parliament, will ensure 33 percent reservation in the Lok Sabha and State Assemblies after the next census and delimitation exercise.

​Women are the most critical link in the context of food security. They are pivotal not only in producing food but also in balancing storage, processing, nutrition, and consumption. They are actively involved in sowing seeds, weeding, harvesting, animal husbandry, vegetable farming, and dairy work.

​Many rural women conserve traditional seeds essential for local food diversity and organic farming. Several women farmers run organic farms, kitchen gardens, and community seed banks, contributing to both food security and environmental balance. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) states that if women were given the same resources as men, agricultural yields could increase by 20–30 percent, reducing the number of people suffering from hunger. This knowledge is proving vital for future food supply and climate change resilience.

​According to ‘The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World’ Report 2024, India has the highest number of undernourished people globally, affecting 195 million. Furthermore, the UN Food Waste Index Report 2024 highlights that 19 percent of the total annual food production—about 1.052 billion tonnes—is wasted globally, while 783 million people go to bed hungry. Therefore, all food security schemes, including the Public Distribution System (PDS), must be transformed into universal and decentralized systems of local production, procurement, storage, and distribution.

​Approximately 70% of India’s total female population resides in rural areas. Under the National Rural Livelihoods Mission, over 80 million women have joined Self-Help Groups (SHGs). Relief from the chore of collecting firewood or fetching water has allowed women, especially in rural areas, to engage more in agriculture and allied sectors. Women constitute 55% of Jan Dhan account holders, providing them access to banking facilities and credit. As of March 2023, the Stand-Up India scheme has disbursed ₹40,710 crore in loans, with 80% going to women entrepreneurs, promoting economic independence.

​In Madhya Pradesh, with a total population of 72.7 million, over 52.5 million people live in rural areas, including 25.4 million women and 27.1 million men. Currently, the state has over 500,000 active SHGs, with approximately 6.2 million women members. So far, ₹648.67 lakhs has been disbursed as a 2% interest subsidy to 30,264 women groups and 12,685 women entrepreneurs.

​The Ladli Bahna Yojana is providing financial aid of ₹1551.86 crore monthly to 12.7 million sisters’ bank accounts. Under this scheme, over ₹35,329 crore has been provided to 12.7 million women so far. Additionally, over ₹882 crore has been provided to 2.5 million women for gas cylinder refills at ₹450. This scheme is not only economically empowering women but also encouraging savings within their families.

​Despite economic progress, traditional social taboos discourage women from participating in salaried work, restricting them to the domestic sphere. On the other hand, NCRB reports indicate a continuous rise in crimes against women in Madhya Pradesh, with the state ranking third in rape cases nationwide. In 2023, 468 dowry death cases were registered, alongside thousands of cases of domestic violence and harassment. Madhya Pradesh is among the top states for crimes against women.

​The Global Gender Gap Report 2023 ranks India at 127th out of 146 countries in economic participation, pointing to severe inequality and gender biases. According to the Economic Survey 2023, over 90% of women workers are considered unemployed, indicating a lack of available work. The National Crime Record Bureau Report for 2022 shows that over half of the women who committed suicide between 2020 and 2022 were homemakers. Despite government efforts, most women are employed in the unorganized sector, lacking permanent employment, fair wages, and social security.

​While maternal and child mortality rates have declined in rural areas, they remain higher than in urban areas. Anemia and malnutrition are significant problems among rural women. Lack of access to health services, clean water, and sanitation are also serious concerns. Social evils like child marriage, domestic violence, dowry, and gender-based discrimination still persist.

*​Bargi Dam Displaced and Affected Association

Courtesy: CounterView

The post The unsung architects of food security: India’s rural women demand recognition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The core of this legal battle rests on the historical injustice faced by the Tharu community, a Scheduled Tribe residing in the village of Kajaria, Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh. This is the story of Santari Ram Rana and Sadai, two representatives of the ancient Tharu Scheduled Tribe, who brought the Government of Uttar Pradesh to the High Court of Allahabad in 2025. Their petition is a meticulously documented protest against what they describe as the arbitrary, illegal, and mechanical denial of their fundamental rights under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. It is a desperate legal appeal to halt the continuous, systematic erasure of a forest community’s identity and livelihood. Notably, the said petition was filed through Advocate Rajat Srivastava and Advocate Nandini Verma and also involved local activist Rajnish Gambhir. The matter remains sub-judice in the Allahabad High Court.

The Tharu’s have deep, recognised roots in the forest lands:

• Official recognition: The Tharu community was officially recognised and notified as a Scheduled Tribe by the President of India on June 24, 1967.
• Vested rights: Their village, Kajaria, was included in the 1982 Action Plan of the Wildlife Conservation Organization, acknowledging it as a village inhabited by the Tharu community. Furthermore, the land was granted or reaffirmed as a revenue village in 1975 and 1976 through two different Government Orders. The petition argues the community has been living in these forests for more than a century.

The Legal Framework: The Forest Rights Act

The petitioners base their claim on the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA). This Act was enacted to recognise and vest forest rights for forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, like the Tharu, who were subjected to “historical injustice”.

The FRA is more than a statute; it is a restorative justice measure. The petition meticulously details how the District Level Committee (DLC) vitiated the very spirit and procedure of the Act. The FRA mandates a strict, three-tier democratic process to verify and vest rights:

1. Village Level (Gram Sabha/FRC): The community, the initial authority, verified and accepted the Tharu claim in 2013.
2. Sub-Divisional Level (SDLC): This tier is tasked with resolving disputes and forwarding verified claims.
3. District Level (DLC): The final legal authority for granting the title.

The Eight-Year Ordeal: Claiming community rights

The petitioners’ journey to secure their Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights—which include collecting firewood (jalauni lakdi), phoos, and cattle grazing—began over a decade ago and was marred by years of official inaction:

• 2013: The Village Level FRC, constituted by the Gram Sabha of Kajaria, accepted the petitioners’ claims under the prescribed Form C.
• 2013-2020: The seven-year stalling: The verified claims were forwarded to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) on July 31, 2013. For the next seven years, the SDLC allegedly failed to decide the claims due to “repeated objections” and “baseless and frivolous technical and procedural objections” consistently raised by the Forest Department. The petitioners assert that this was a deliberate attempt to deny their rightful claims.
• December 26, 2020: Conditional approval: Finally, the SDLC approved the claims and forwarded them to the District Level Committee (DLC) for the final decision.

The arbitrary rejection

The climax of the ordeal came with the decision of the highest administrative body:

• March 15, 2021: Impugned order: The District Level Committee (DLC), the final authority, rejected the community’s claims in an order the petition deems “illegal, arbitrary and ultra vires”. The rejection order was a stereotyped and mechanical rejection, similar to those passed for approximately 20 other Tharu villages on the same grounds.
• Violation of due process: The rejection was passed unilaterally, without granting the petitioners a mandatory opportunity of hearing and without adhering to the due process established by the FRA and its accompanying Rules.
• Flawed grounds for rejection: The DLC is accused of basing its rejection on “extraneous and irrelevant material”. For instance, it considered that the village had been granted revenue status and was receiving government welfare benefits, ignoring the fact that the FRA explicitly confers forest rights regardless of the revenue status of the village. The rejection also relies on a misinterpreted interim order of the Supreme Court (Thirumal Kapad v. Union of India), which the petitioners argue cannot override their statutory rights under the FRA.

A plea for justice and protection

The petition details the petitioners’ desperate attempts to seek justice post-rejection:

• Lack of redressal: The petitioners submitted multiple representations (e.g., on August 15, 2021, and November 25, 2021) to the DLC, SDLC, and the State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC). The SLMC, whose statutory function is to monitor the recognition process, failed to act on the grievances.
• Ongoing harassment: The non-recognition of their vested rights is causing the petitioners to face “continuous harassment and threats from forest officials”. They allege they are subject to adversity and even forged FIRs when attempting to exercise their basic rights, such as collecting firewood.
• Failure of the monitoring body: The petitioners’ repeated appeals to the State Level Monitoring Committee (SLMC)—the statutory body created to oversee and correct the FRA implementation—were ignored. The SLMC’s failure to perform its duty is highlighted as a further example of the State’s abdication of responsibility.

The petition concludes that the non-conferment of forest rights is a violation of the petitioners’ fundamental rights (Article 21) and a continuation of the historical injustice that the FRA was specifically designed to remedy.

The relief sought

The petition is, therefore, a fervent appeal to the High Court to restore the sanctity of the FRA and the fundamental rights of the community. They seek:

1. Quash the impugned order: Issue a writ of Certiorari to set aside the arbitrary rejection order of the District Level Committee dated March 15, 2021.
2. Order reconsideration: Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the District Level Committee to reconsider and decide the claims afresh in a time-bound and legal manner, in full accordance with the FRA.
3. Ensure oversight: Issue a writ of Mandamus commanding the State Level Monitoring Committee to perform its statutory monitoring functions.
4. Grant interim relief: Allow the petitioners to immediately exercise their community forest rights (for jalauni lakdi, phoos, and grazing) during the pendency of the writ petition.

This writ petition is a powerful judicial attempt to dismantle bureaucratic tyranny and ensure that the “historical injustice” recognised by Parliament is finally undone for the Tharu people of Kajaria.

Related:

MoEFCC subverting the Forest Rights Act, 2006: 150 Citizens groups

Independent experts, not government servants must be part of the CEC while deciding the challenge to Forest Conservation Act: Former bureaucrats to SC

Destruction of forest in Kancha Gachibowli, Telangana violation of Congress party manifesto: CCG Statement

AIUFWP submits letter LoP Rahul Gandhi, calls for action as forest rights remain in limbo

Adivasi Land Rights Erosion: The effects of the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment Act

The post The Fight for Ancestral Forest Rights: Tharu tribe challenges seven-year administrative blockade appeared first on SabrangIndia.