The Gujjar Bakkerwal community is a recognised Scheduled Tribe (ST) community and has lived in forest areas for centuries, sustaining their livelihoods, while maintaining a close relationship with nature and forest resources. The implementation of the Forest Rights Act 2006 in Jammu & Kashmir in 2021 recognized the legitimate rights of forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers over their traditional lands, traditional migratory routes and habitats.
In view of these legal protections, any forceful eviction, intimidation, or use of violence and demolition of the houses of tribal families is a matter of serious concern. The Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted to protect the rights of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD), and following its provisions is mandatory for all authorities.

The signatory organisations have demanded an immediate inquiry into the incident, repair and reconstruction of their demolished houses, protection of the affected families, and strict action against responsible officials regarding this grave violation of the rights of tribal communities.
The statement further says that “it is unacceptable that a sub divisional magistrate who carried out these demolition is faking ignorance of a parliament enacted law. The officer has been directed under FRA, a special Act of the Parliament in 2006 that the rights of the nomadic tribe should be protected. Government departments and authorities are supposed to help the forest communities to claim their rights. To the contrary, in Jammu, a government officer has uprooted dozens of families without any authorisation and violated the law of the land.”

AIWFP and others have demanded that Section 7 of the FR Act should be immediately invoked against the erring official and the person should be immediately punished for violation of this central Act. They have also urged the administration to ensure that no eviction takes place and that the rights guaranteed under the Forest Rights Act are fully implemented.

The AIUFWP is an Adivasi and Forest Dwellers Union and it has stated that they stand in solidarity with the Gujjar nomadic community and reaffirm our commitment to the protection of rights of forest dwelling communities, environmental justice, and the constitutional rights of all marginalised communities.

Related:

J&K: “Tribals Bachao” protest intensifies over govt move to declare upper castes as ST

J&K to implement Forest Rights Act by March 2021

Bakerwal girl was Brutalised Because She Was a Muslim; Period

The post Demolitions of homes of Gujjar Bakerwals in Jammu unconstitutional & violation of FRA 2006: AIUFWP appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In May 1925, state troops opened fire on protesting farmers in Neemuchana village of Alwar State in present-day Rajasthan. Five years later, in May 1930, another massacre unfolded at Tiladi Sera in the Rawain region of Tehri Garhwal. Though separated by geography, ecology, and language, the two movements reflected strikingly similar tensions over taxation, forests, customary rights, and the changing nature of native states in late colonial India.

The rulers were a retreating British colonial state.

Both movements emerged within princely states that colonial administrators categorised and later historiography continued to categorise as ‘Rajput States’.  Yet in both cases, the protesters themselves were overwhelmingly drawn from Rajput agrarian communities resisting policies imposed by those very states.

The Neemuchana Movement of Alwar State

In Rajasthan, the Rajput socio-political setup traversed through all three stages: a quasi-republican clan, the feudal state and the imperial power, sometimes all three existing simultaneously.

However, Professor Shail Mayaram notes that the most basic unit of the Rajput sociopolitical setup was a coparcenary bhaichara (brotherhood) which was always represented by the khamp (sub-lineage) headed by a chief. (Against History, Against State, p. 202)

The Alwar State was formed by the Naruka khamp of Kachhwahas in 1775. However, at Neemuchana Kisan Andolan in 1925, the Alwar King and the protesting farmers of Alwar belonged to the same Kachhwaha clan.

The protest itself was not unique in Rajasthan. Historian R. W. Stern documents the mobilisation of Jaipur State forces in the early 20th century, to subdue the Shekhawat clansmen of Sikar and arrest their chief Rao Raja Hardayal Singh of Sikar, a move that was met with fierce armed resistance from the Shekhawats, another Kachhwah subclan.

In the Essays on Rajputana, Lloyd Rudolph and Susanne Rudolph observe that the States were confronted with a dual task. First, to weaken the political power of the Rajput chiefs and agrarian clansmen who, despite having played a central role in the formation of these states, were increasingly perceived as threats to centralised authority. Second, to strengthen the State’s centralised governments headed by the King and led by the educated Brahmin elite and the wealthy Mahajan class i.e. Bania and Khatri elites. Efforts to regulate and control farmers and clan-based agrarian structures frequently generated clashes between State police and agrarian clansmen, even compelling minor States to seek colonial intervention for suppression.

In the context of Alwar, Rajesh Kumar writes “The third land revenue settlement in Alwar was revised in 1923-24 by Pandit N.L. Tikko, raising the annual total demand to Rs. 29,39,112. Under this new settlement the land revenue was increased by 50 per cent and no concession was given to the Rajput cultivators, instead their Biswedari rights were forfeited.”(Proceedings of the Indian History Congress,Vol. 73 (2012); pp. 794-798)

In October 1924, the farmers began the first agitation to cancel the rates of land taxation. By early 1925, the Biswedars across Bansur, Thanagazi, Neemuchana, Bamanwas began collecting in huge numbers. Led by Govind Singh and Madho Singh of Neemuchana, they approached the Akhil Bhartiya Kshatriya Mahasabha and published their grievances in a pamphlet titled “Pukar”. Apart from reversion to previous rates, they demanded cessation of auction of banjad (infertile) land, cessation of blockage at roads connecting Alwar and Bansur, abolition of begar, permission to kill wild animals destroying crops.

In response, the Alwar government began confiscating grain stocks from the Biswedars, a move that deeply angered Rajput cultivators across the region. Many of these farmers were veterans of the First World War and began collecting weapons in anticipation of armed confrontation. They began organizing in Neemuchana. On May 14, 1925, Neemuchana was surrounded by State forces. As per official figures, 156 farmers were killed, while non-official figures claim much higher numbers. The public outrage that followed enabled the British to force Raja into exile, although the extent of accountability faced by the minister N L Tickoo remains far less clear.

Tiladi Movement of Tehri Garhwal State

The region of Uttarakhand — Garhwal and Kumaon— was ruled by three Rajput dynasties for thirteen centuries: the Katyuris of Khas origins who united the entire region in the 8th century, the migrant Panwar dynasty who replaced them in Garhwal and the Chand dynasty who replaced them in Kumaon. Unlike Rajasthan, both the Garhwal and Kumaon states were established through the gradual consolidation of numerous hill chieftaincies, forts, and clan-based polities.

After the Gurkha invasion and Anglo-Gurkha war, the Kumaon state was permanently annexed by the British and the Garhwal state was divided into British Garhwal and the smaller Tehri-Garhwal, which was retained by the Panwar dynasty.

When the Tehri ruler Kirti Shah died, his minor son Narendra Shah ascended the throne. By the late 1920s, Narendra Shah had largely withdrawn from day-to-day governance and was living comfortably in Europe, leaving the administration in the hands of his Diwan, Chakradhar Juyal. Acting in the name of an absentee and politically inexperienced ruler, the Juyal administration embarked upon an ambitious project to construct a new capital, while simultaneously facing growing pressure from the British owing to the rapid expansion of railway infrastructure in the Himalayan region.

To finance these projects and strengthen state control over resources, the administration introduced a series of deeply unpopular measures in the Rawain region. These included a grazing tax of ₹1 per head on sheep and goats, restrictions on grazing rights, fodder collection, and fuelwood harvesting, as well as bans on local forest-based festivals and customary rituals. Such policies directly undermined the subsistence economy and customary rights of local communities, fuelling widespread resentment against the Tehri State.

Author and Human rights activist Vidyabhushan Rawat notes, “Access to forests, fishing, and even keeping cattle became restricted or criminalized. Local people were prohibited from collecting minor forest produce, while British settlers such as Frederick Wilson enjoyed vast forest leases, exporting pine and chir timber to Britain”

Bhoon Singh and Heera Singh of Nagaon; Ludhar Singh, Jaman Singh, and Dalpati of Barkot; Dayaram of Kanseru , Dhoom Singh of Chakargaon started organizing the farmers of Rawain valley. On May 20, 1930, four farmer leaders were arrested and presented before the SDM (sub-divisional magistrate) Surendra Dutt. To protest the arrests, the farmers gathered in huge numbers prompting the Divisional Forest Officer Padamdutt Raturi to open fire, killing three farmers. However, the protesters managed to forcefully, free their leaders.

On May 30, 1930, the protesters gathered in huge numbers in Tiladi Sera on Yamuna bank. Diwan Juyal ordered Colonel Sundar Singh to fire. Sundar Singh refused and was suspended. Natthu Sajjwan was appointed the next army chief and ordered to fire, killing at least eighteen protesters (as per official), although local accounts put the fatality at 60-80. Around 194 farmers were arrested and sixteen more died in custody.

Conclusion

The histories of Neemuchana and Tiladi complicate, rather nuance, over-simplistic understandings of princely India by revealing deep internal tensions between the elite classes emerging within princely capitals — royalty, bureaucratic elites, and wealthy mercantile interests — and rural farming communities, both landed and landless, amid mounting colonial economic pressures. The histories of Neemuchana and Tiladi ultimately undermine the very premise of colonial labels such as the “Rajput State”.

They highlight the growing alienation of largely uneducated Rajput farmers and the increasing dominance of Brahmin and Khatri bureaucratic elites and Bania capitalist classes within the centres of princely power. Questions of taxation, forests, customary rights, and administrative centralisation frequently produced conflict between ruling establishments and the very communities in whose name political legitimacy was claimed..

Recovering, rather re-discovering, these movements is therefore essential not merely for regional history but for understanding the changing nature of power in late colonial India. They remind us that the politics of princely India cannot be understood through simplified dynastic or communal frameworks alone. Beneath the formal authority of princely cabinets existed complex struggles over land, resources, administration, and political representation — struggles that continue to remain insufficiently remembered in mainstream accounts of Indian history.

(The author is a mechanical engineer and an independent commentator on history and politics, with a particular focus on Rajasthan. His work explores the syncretic exchanges of India’s borderlands as well as contemporary debates on memory, identity and historiography; he can be contacted on adityakrishnadeora@gmail.com)

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are the author’s personal views, and do not necessarily represent the views of Sabrangindia.

Related:

Hindutva’s Rajasthan Project: Brahmin-Bania Power, not just Muslim baiting

September of Fear: Targeted Violence against Christians in Rajasthan exposes pattern of harassment after Anti-Conversion Bill

Rajasthan: Civil Society demands arrests, rule of law and end to minority targeting under anti-conversion law

PUCL slams recently passed Rajasthan anti-conversion bill as “draconian and unconstitutional”

The post Rethinking the ‘Rajput State’: The Neemuchana & Tiladi agrarian movements appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The agitation, organised under the banner of the Kanda Utpadak Shetkari Kranti Mahamorcha, drew large participation from onion growers across Nashik — one of India’s largest onion-producing regions — and was supported by leaders of the opposition Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA), including Rohit Pawar, Harshvardhan Sapkal and Ambadas Danve.

Demonstrations by different lots of farmers in a few thousands at the APMC’s procurement offices across districts culminated in a 10,000-strong blockade on the highway with several thousand being detained/arrested by the police. Apart from the protesting farmers, Opposition leaders who stood with protesting farmers in support were also detained. Harshvardhan Sakpal, President of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC), Rohit Pawar, Member of Vidhan Sabha (MLA) from Karjat from the NCP-Sharad Pawar (NCP-SP) and Ambadas Danve, former Leader of the Opposition in the State Assembly from Shiv Sena-Udhav Thackeray.

According to a report published by Rural Voice, nearly 1,500 farmers gathered in Chandwad town and temporarily blocked traffic on the highway while demanding remunerative prices for onions amid a steep crash in market rates. Farmers argued that the current prices being offered in markets are far below their production costs and have pushed cultivators into severe distress. The report noted that onion wholesale inflation has remained negative since March 2025, while retail inflation has stayed negative since May 2025, reflecting a prolonged decline in prices that has sharply reduced farmer earnings.

Across several other media reports, farmers repeatedly highlighted the widening gap between cultivation costs and market returns. The New Indian Express reported that onion growers were demanding procurement at ₹32 per kilogram while prevailing market prices in parts of Maharashtra had reportedly crashed to as low as ₹4–6 per kilogram. Farmers and opposition leaders argued that the current rates are insufficient even to recover the cost of seeds, fertilisers, labour, storage and transport.

The immediate trigger for the protest was the Centre’s announcement of onion procurement through NAFED and NCCF at revised rates of approximately ₹1,580 per quintal. Farmer groups rejected the procurement price as grossly inadequate. Speaking during the protest, several cultivators stated that onion production itself costs roughly ₹1,800–2,000 per quintal, making the government’s procurement rate economically unviable. The Hindu quoted one farmer saying that cultivators were “not even able to recover the cost of production after selling onions.”

Farmer organisations demanded that procurement prices be increased substantially, with various groups seeking rates between ₹2,400 and ₹3,000 per quintal. Protesters also called for compensation for farmers who had already sold onions at distress prices over recent months. Reports in National Herald, Mid-Day and The Times of India noted that growers additionally demanded expanded procurement operations across onion-producing talukas, direct intervention in markets, and stronger implementation of price deficiency payment schemes.

The protest also reflected growing anger over repeated export restrictions imposed on onions over the past several years. Farmers alleged that unstable export policies and sudden government interventions had weakened India’s onion trade and severely damaged farmer incomes. According to The Hindu, opposition leaders argued that international markets, including Bangladesh, had increasingly reduced onion imports from India due to inconsistent export policies.

The demonstrations quickly escalated into a large-scale highway blockade. Multiple media outlets, including The Times of India and The Economic Times, reported that protesters marched from the Chandwad APMC to the Mumbai–Agra highway, blocking traffic for nearly 90 minutes to two hours. Long queues of vehicles formed on both sides of the road as farmers raised slogans, dumped onions onto the highway and wore garlands made of onions as a symbol of their distress.

Some protesters also distributed Melody toffees during the agitation in a symbolic political gesture directed at the Prime Minister after recent public attention around the confectionery brand. The Economic Times reported that protesters sarcastically remarked that if onions were promoted in the same way, perhaps their prices too would rise.

Police later intervened and detained several protesters and opposition leaders, including Harshvardhan Sapkal (INC) Rohit Pawar (NCP-SP), and Ambadas Danve (SS-UBT). According to The Times of India, more than 300 police personnel, including riot control units, were deployed to manage the situation. The report stated that over 50 protesters were detained under provisions of the Bombay Police Act before being released later.

While authorities alleged that some protesters attempted to deflate the tyres of stranded vehicles, opposition leaders claimed they had instructed demonstrators not to target ambulances, public transport or ordinary civilians. Nevertheless, the confrontation underscored the intensity of frustration among onion growers, many of whom say they have been trapped in recurring cycles of debt, price crashes and policy uncertainty.

Importantly, the Nashik protests are not an isolated flashpoint. They reflect a broader agrarian crisis that has repeatedly surfaced in Maharashtra’s onion economy over the past decade. Farmers participating in the agitation argued that while the costs of cultivation have steadily increased due to fertilisers, pesticides, labour, transport and storage expenses, government interventions have largely focused on controlling consumer prices rather than ensuring farmer incomes.

Several farmer leaders warned that continuing distress sales and unstable pricing policies could intensify indebtedness and deepen the agrarian crisis across onion-producing regions of Maharashtra. As protests spread beyond Nashik into areas including Sambhaji Nagar and Solapur, the demonstrations have once again drawn national attention to the fragile economics of onion cultivation — a sector where even minor policy shifts can determine whether farmers survive a season or sink further into debt.

Related:

Noida Protest 2026: A labour uprising the state refused to understand

NSA slapped on journalist, DU scholar in Noida workers’ protest case amid allegations of crackdown on dissent

JNU Students Lathi-charged, Injured, first detained during protest over V-C remarks, UGC Equity guidelines, now Jailed

2025 in Protest: Across issues, across India

The post “₹4 a Kilo for a Crop That Costs ₹20 to Grow”: Nashik’s onion farmers erupt in protest over deepening price crisis appeared first on SabrangIndia.

These demands have surfaced following concerns “regarding rights violations of this community

 In the context of the Amrabad Tiger Reserve, in Nagarkurnool district of Telangana; both the Adivasis and activists-in-solidarity have strongly asserted the legal and democratic rights of the Chenchu community in the Nallamalla forests. 

According to a press note issued by a solidarity forum, a series of actions last week – including 

1. The letters sent to various Central and state authorities and meetings with senior state officials, 
2. The Hyderabad civil society round table, on April 17, in which a large number of Chenchu Adivasis spoke resolutely against involuntary relocation and 
3. In the Prajavani meeting with Mr. Chinna Reddy, (Vice-Chairman of State Planning Board), where Chenchu adivasis were assured that their rights would be safeguarded and district forest officials were asked to comply with law. 

Some of the key demands in all these meetings and representations include 

1. An immediate end to issuing cheques and forcible relocation, in violation of law, 
2. Pursuing the harmonious co-existence model in Amrabad Tiger Reserve and ensuring the democratic participation of communities in forest governance 
3. Withdrawal of fabricated cases against Chenchu Adivasi leaders and 
4. Full compliance with all the relevant laws including the Forest Rights Act, 2006; especially community forest rights and habitat rights of Chenchus, Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (as amended in 2006), Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 and the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Act, 2013. 

As is well known, Chenchus are a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) residing in the Nallamalla forests of Telangana, since generations. They are recorded as one of the ancient food gathering communities with rich traditional knowledge of forest produce, medicinal plants and live in close association with nature. As also recommended by Sir Christoph Von Haimendorf in 1940, their cultural significance with Nallamala forest should be rightly recognized, by declaring the region as a ‘Chenchu Conservation Bio-Reserve’, in order to protect their socio-cultural rights and their natural habitats. 

However, states the press release, the introduction of ‘Project Tiger’, has resulted in persistent efforts to forcibly relocate them from their natural habitats. The latest threat to their co-existence in the forest has been by way of cheques being issued in March 2026, by senior ministers of the state government, as part of Amrabad Tiger Reserve ‘Relocation package’. It is a gross injustice that without appropriate consultation and consent, as mandated by law, the Chenchu Adivasis are sought to be removed and relocated outside the Schedule-V Area, where they would have no access to wild foods or forest produce and where they will lose all their Scheduled Area constitutional safeguards. 

In this context, many Chenchu community members from affected villages of Sarlapally, Vatwarlapally, Kollampenta, Rayuletupenta, Uppununtala, Kudichintalabayalu came to Hyderabad on April 17, 2026 to submit petitions to the Chief Minister, through the Prajavani Grievance Cell, against the involuntary relocation and excesses of the Forest Department. They also shared their struggles and perspectives with many civil society and citizens groups, during a well-attended round table consultation on the same day. The youth and women gave very clear and cogent reasons as to why they do not want to leave their forest and how there was no proper consent or consultation with their Gram Sabhas. As Chiguru Nagamma of Kommanipenta said, “We have seen how our forefathers were displaced for other projects and whatever money came was wasted on liquor, so we do not want any money or land somewhere else. We will survive in the forest that has sustained us”. 

For example:

Tirupathaiah of Sarlapally gave examples of how basic development activities are not being allowed in their villages and how even the banks or government departments are refusing to give them loans or benefits of schemes because they are under ‘relocation’. Mallikarjun, the ex-Sarpanch, spoke about how their forest rights under the RoFR Act are pending and that shifting them outside the Scheduled Area would make them lose all their constitutional entitlements under PESA, FRA, LARR and LTR Acts. Guravaiah stated that he filed several detailed RTIs and appeals seeking information about the relocation details, but did not receive proper responses. 

The youth expressed their anguish that they are being criminalised with false cases for speaking out for their rights. They said that, along with state officials, some ‘pro-conservation groups’ are also creating a false narrative of ‘voluntary relocation’. They claimed that most of the people whose consent was taken so far, are not Adivasis and they are non-local people, who want to benefit from the package. The Chenchu women said that their men are being given petty jobs (such as forest watchers) to put pressure on their families for giving consent to relocate. This is a deliberate attempt to divide the Chenchus and create friction among them. However, they very clearly conveyed that they will not give consent to any relocation package and would continue to co-exist with the wildlife in harmony, as that is how the Chenchus always survived in the forest.

Speakers at the consultation also raised many legal concerns including non-implementation of the Forest Rights Act, non-recognition of community forest rights and habitat rights of Chenchus. They spoke on the deliberate misinterpretation of the Wildlife Protection Act to displace Chenchus in the name of making the forests ‘inviolate’, violations under PESA and lack of prior informed consent procedures, non-implementation of the Land Acquisition Act of 2013 (LARR). The recent relocation of Adivasis from Mysampet and Rampur in Kawal tiger reserve where the displaced community became landless wage labour still awaiting the promised land and cash compensation is a classic example of non-compliance with legal and statutory accountability mechanisms in relocation.  

Veteran civil rights activist Prof. Haragopal said that the State wants Chenchus out of the forest, both because Adivasi regions are mineral resource rich, but also because the capitalist order wants to extinguish the selfless and community way of living of Adivasis. Other activists who were present and spoke at the Consultation in solidarity include Usha Seethalakshmi, K. Satyavathi, Sajaya K, Dr. Ramkishan, Sandhya V, Ashalatha S, Bhanu Kalluri, Girija, Ravi Kanneganti, Shankar, Kalpana, Meera Sanghamitra, Sanjeev, Soumitri, Ravichander etc.  

The efforts over the past three months, by the Community Forest Rights Working Group of Telangana also resulted in the formation of the Chenchu Solidarity Forum (CSF), on the eve of Earth Day. As an independent citizens’ collective to support the struggles of the Chenchu Adivasi communities, co-existence and democratic governance in Nallamalla forests and ensure their rights, guaranteed by various laws and the Constitution, are not violated. 

Key demands submitted to the Telangana government are:

• Immediately stop issuing cheques and stop the process of unconstitutional relocation of the Chenchus living in Amrabad tiger reserve area.
• Implement the Forest Rights Act including recognition of Community Forest Rights and Habitat Rights, settlement of pending IFR claims and resurvey of claims rejected and pending.
• The forest department has to place in public domain the mandatory report as per WLPA (with 2006 amendment) of the scientific study conducted in consultation with the Chenchus, that proves ‘irrevocable damage to wildlife’ by the Chenchus.
• The forest department should make public the details of core and buffer zone demarcations, details of consultations conducted with concerned Gram Sabhas and details of conditions on which consent was obtained, including details of Social Impact Assessment report, R&R Plan, Gram Sabha resolutions and consent letters.
• Government must share the details of notifying villages in core and buffer zones in Amrabad Tiger Reserve. 
• Strengthen the governance of forests through co-existence of Chenchus with their forests and wildlife using the Constitutional and legal mechanisms of the PESA, FRA, LARR for community centred conservation which is globally recognized as the most sustainable form of Conservation and Climate Protection. 
• Withdraw all the false criminal cases on the Chenchu youth, community leaders and intimidation tactics to prevent them from voicing their concerns. 
• Safeguard the Nallamalla ecosystem and declare the Nallamalla forests as Chenchu Conservation Bio-Region Reserve.

Related:

Thousands of Adivasis demand the implementation of FRA 2006

Breaking: All Intervention Applications defending FRA, 2006 admitted by SC

Woman, Van Gujjar, Forest Dweller – the roles & intersectionalities in Mariam’s life

Mass protests & Sansad Gherao against continued Adivasi evictions

Compilation of Forest Rights Act, Rules, and Guidelines

Frequently Asked Questions on the Forest Rights Act, 2006

Counter Affidavit filed by MoTa in support of tribal rights in the FRA

The post Telangana: Stop forcible ‘re-location of Chenchu Adivasis from Amrabad Tiger Reserve appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary thus quashed a 2021 order passed by the District Level Committee, Lakhimpur, refusing to finalise the claims of 107 ‘Tharu’ community members for forest rights, specifically the right to collect and use minor forest produce for their livelihood. The Order of the High Court was passed on April 9, 2026.

In sum, in its order, the Committee, constituted under the Schedule Tribe and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007, had relied on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, to reject the claim of the petitioners. The petition was filed by the NGO Udasa and 101 members of the Tharu community. The petitioners, residents of the Palia Kalan area in Lakhimpur Kheri and members of a Scheduled Tribe, had challenged a March 15, 2021, order that dismissed their claims to community forest rights.

The petitioners moved the High Court seeking the quashing of the district-level committee’s rejection of their claims. They argued that as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, they are entitled to specific rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

It was the case of the petitioners that the Forest Rights Act 2006 was enacted specifically for the benefit of the Scheduled Tribes and traditional forest dwellers. They contended that under Section 3 of the Act, their rights include the ownership, access, and use of minor forest produce traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries.

Furthering this argument, the petitioners also relied on a 2013 Ministry of Tribal Affairs circular clarifying that the 2006 Act, being a subsequent statute, supersedes all preceding court judgments or orders of prior date. The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court found justification in their stance and noted that the 2006 Act aims to recognize and vest the forest and occupation in forest land to these forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and to ensure their livelihood and food security.

On a close reading of the case, the High Court observed that the district-level committee had fundamentally erred in its approach. The court noted that the committee failed to properly consider the intent and specific provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Instead, the authority had relied solely on an interim order passed by the Supreme Court in the year 2000 to justify the rejection of the claims. The bench emphasized that the primary objective of the 2006 Act is to recognise the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities and to secure their livelihood and food security. Explaining this further, the Court clarified that with the enactment of this Act, the legislature had not created any new rights for these forest dwellers, rather it had recognized the existing rights and occupation of these people, who had been traditionally restricted to this place of dwelling in forest owing to various historical reasons.

The court noted in its Order that:

“The objective of the Act is to recognise the traditional rights of forest-dwelling communities and ensure their livelihood and food security, which cannot be overlooked.”

The judges also pointed out that the 2006 legislation was enacted specifically to address historical injustices and to provide a legal framework for the rights of these communities, making it imperative for committees to apply the Act’s provisions rather than relying on outdated interim orders It was against this backdrop that the Court found fault with the impugned order, which the bench said had not taken into account the relevant provisions of the 2006 Act and had only dealt with the Supreme Court interim order passed in 2000, prior to the enactment of the Act.

Following this, the court quashed the March 15, 2021, order and directed the concerned district authority to rehear the matter. The bench mandated that the petitioners be provided a full opportunity for a hearing and that a “reasoned order” be passed within a reasonable timeframe after a thorough examination of all relevant facts and records.

Furthermore, the court provided interim protection to the Tharu community members, clarifying that until the fresh decision is reached, the petitioners will continue to enjoy their existing forest rights without disruption.

In its Order, the Court highlighted that Section 4 of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause, meaning that the central government recognizes and vests these rights notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force.

Advocates Nandini Verma, Desh Deepak Singh and Rajat Srivastava apeared for the petitioners. The judgement in Udasa and 106 others vs Union of India, Thru.the Secy. Ministry of Tribal Affairs New Delhi and 5 others may be read here:

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 Victory for Forest Rights: Allahabad HC recognises land claims of Tharu Tribes, strikes down decision of DLC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Video of the General Strike

From the paddy fields of Punjab to industrial belts in Tamil Nadu, from tea gardens in West Bengal to transport hubs in Uttar Pradesh, and across the National Capital Region in New Delhi, workers and peasants converged in a rare display of coordinated dissent. Coal miners downed tools. Electricity employees joined demonstrations. Banking and insurance services reported disruptions. In ports, transport depots and manufacturing clusters, protest meetings and road blockades signaled a shared disquiet.

The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) described the strike as “one of the largest ever General Strikes in the history of Independent India,” arguing that it cemented worker-peasant unity as the backbone of resistance to what it termed corporate-driven policies. Congratulating the Joint Platform of Central Trade Unions, the SKM said the action had instilled confidence among working people to resist “exploitative, corporate-oriented measures” and warned that if the Union government persisted with its trajectory, “more intensified, continuous, united pan-India struggles” would follow.

At the heart of the mobilisation was opposition to the four labour codes. But the anger spilled far beyond them. The SKM pointed to resentment against Free Trade Agreements, the proposed Electricity Bill, and the Seed Bill. Rural participation, it noted, was not symbolic but structural. “There was much more effective and widespread coordination than ever before,” the statement said, highlighting the large-scale involvement of women and rural workers. The issue of scheme workers — denied worker status and statutory minimum wages — figured prominently in protest speeches across states.

For the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), the strike was a “historic success,” with demonstrations reported at more than 2,000 locations nationwide. The organisation characterised the mobilisation as a warning to the ruling dispensation: withdraw what it called anti-people laws or face prolonged resistance. Participation, it emphasised, cut across organised and unorganised sectors, underlining the breadth of social discontent.

AIKS leader Vijoo Krishnan framed the moment as one of political clarity rather than episodic protest. “This unity of workers and peasants is not accidental,” he said. “It reflects deep anger against policies that privatise profits and socialise losses. The government must withdraw the anti-worker labour codes and anti-farmer measures. If it fails to listen, today’s strike will only be the beginning of a longer and stronger struggle.”

Significantly, the mobilisation was not confined to physical spaces. Social media became an extension of the protest ground. Hashtags trended across platforms, live videos from picket lines travelled instantly between states, and infographics explaining the labour codes and farm-related legislations were widely circulated in multiple languages. Leaders used digital tools not merely for publicity but for political education — simplifying complex policy questions into accessible, shareable content.

Farmers gather at Freedom Park in Bangalore on February 10 to launch an indefinite strike. Photo: Vijoo Krishnan/FB

Vijoo Krishnan and other SKM leaders conducted regular live briefings  in real time and amplified ground reports from district-level actions. Short video messages from protest sites in Punjab, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal created a sense of simultaneity — of a nation rising together rather than isolated pockets of unrest. In an era where narratives are shaped as much online as on the streets, the strike demonstrated that digital platforms can be harnessed to deepen organisational coordination and expand the moral reach of collective action.

Video of strike from Tamil Nadu

In Haryana’s Kurukshetra, where the SKM is scheduled to hold its National Council meeting on February 24, the emphasis is already shifting from assessment to escalation. The coming phase, leaders indicate, will be shaped both independently and in coordination with trade unions and agricultural workers’ platforms.

If the Modi led BJP – NDA government reads February 12 as a routine disruption, it may be misreading the mood. What unfolded across India was less a stoppage of work than a consolidation of resistance — an assertion that the grammar of economic reform cannot be written without the consent of those who labour in fields, factories and public services.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post February 12: Workers and Farmers Forge a Historic Axis of Resistance Across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

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.