As 2022 draws to a close, here is an annual round up of orders and judgements from India’s constitutional courts — High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. In a month by month look, CJP brings you a calendar of the year gone by, an overview of verdicts that raised some eyebrows and violated one’s right to liberty and fair trial, resulting in disappointment to the ongoing battle for the realisation of constitutional rights.

DECEMBER

Bilkis Bano’s Review Petition dismissed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition that was filed by Bilkis Bano seeking review of the court’s judgment in May, 2022 allowing the Gujarat government to decide remission application of the 11 convicts. The petition challenging the remission itself is still pending before the court and will be heard after the court’s winter vacation.

Eleven convicts were held guilty and sentenced to life for the gang rape and murder of Bilkis Bano and 14 of her family members including her 3-year-old daughter. The convicts were released by an order of the Gujarat government in August this year, under its remission policy of 1992. The review petition, filed by Bilkis Bano’s lawyer, Shobha Gupta, had contended that the Gujarat High Court judgement is contrary to Section 432(7) (b) of CrPC which states that the appropriate government to decide remission is the government of the State where the trial was held. A court in the state of Maharashtra had decided the case and sentenced the convicts in 2008.

While dismissing the petition, the bench held that there appeared to be “no error apparent on the face of record, which may call for review of the judgment dated 13th May, 2022” and further held that the cases relied upon by the petitioner are of no assistance to her in this review petition.

NOVEMBER

Exclusion of SC/ST/OBC from EWS is valid for keeping balance of equality: SC bench in majority

In a majority judgement of 3:2, a five-judge constitutional bench of the Supreme Court upheld the reservation introduced for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) up to 10% in education and public employment to be constitutionally valid. The bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari, Bela Trivedi and JB Pardiwala held the majority view while CJI UU Lalit and Justice S Ravindra Bhat took the dissenting view that EWS reservation was not constitutionally valid for being exclusionary to the disadvantaged classes i.e. Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backwards Classes (OBC) (non-creamy layer).

The majority judgment held that the reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not violate any essential feature of the Constitution of India and does not cause any damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India. It further observed that exclusion of the classes covered by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) from getting the benefit of reservation as economically weaker sections, being in the nature of balancing the requirements of nondiscrimination and compensatory discrimination, does not violate the Equality Code and does not in any manner cause damage to the basic structure of the Constitution of India.

Lastly, the majority bench held that reservation for EWS does not breach the limit of the 50% ceiling because that ceiling is not inflexible and in any case, applies only to the reservations envisaged by Articles 15(4), 15(5) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.

In the minority judgment, dissenting judges have held that the introduction of reservation for EWS is exclusionary and violates the basic structure on the ground of exclusion. The basis of their dissent are the provisions of the Equality Code (Articles 14, 15, 16, and 17) and how it is a part of basic structure of the Constitution. The minority judgement held that introduction of EWS reservation [through insertion of Article 16(1)] violates the right to equal opportunity, in addition to the non-discriminatory facet of equality, both of which are part of the equality code and the basic structure.

OCTOBER

Delhi HC denies bail to Umar Khalid as “prima facie case” established

In the larger conspiracy case of the Northeast Delhi riots, the Delhi High Court refused bail to student leader Umar Khalid. Since September 2020, Khalid has been imprisoned. Khalid’s appeal against the trial court’s decision to refuse him bail in the case was rejected by a division High Court bench. The bench stated while pronouncing the court order that they did not find any merit in the bail appeal. The High Court bench also stated that there is “prima facie case” established against Umar Khalid in regards to the role played by him during the riots, chakka jaam and destruction of public property. Emphasizing on Khalid’s role in organizing the protests that took place in various sites, the court order stated that the name of the appellant finds recurring mention from the beginning of the conspiracy till the culmination of the ensuing riots.

Khalid was arrested by the Delhi Police in September 2020, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), on the charge of larger conspiracy to allegedly unleash violence to defame the Indian government during a visit by former US President Donald Trump. While Khalid was granted bail in the matter concerning Indian Penal Code and Arms Act charges, he continues to remain in custody in connection with the Delhi Riots larger ‘conspiracy case’ concerning UAPA charges under FIR No. 59 of 2020.

Bombay HC order acquitting GN Saibaba and five others in Maoist links case suspended by SC

The Supreme Court suspended an order by the Bombay High Court that acquitted former Delhi University professor GN Saibaba and five others in a case surrounding their Maoists links. The SC held that the HC had not considered merits of the case and instead granted the acquittals on the grounds of lack of sanction. The result of this urgently heard intervention filed by the Maharashtra government is that professor GN Saibaba and all others, including Prashant Rahi will remain in jail. The Court also issued notice and granted accused four weeks to file counter applications.

A day before the order of the Supreme Court, the Bombay High Court had acquitted GN Saibaba (accused no.6), who is 90 percent disabled and wheelchair-bound. The court had also acquitted the other 5 accused, namely Mahesh Kariman Tikri, Pandu Pora Narote (who died in August 2022), Hem Keshavdatta Mishra, journalist Prashant Rahi Narayan Sanglikar and Vijay Nan Tirki. In 2017, they had been accused of “waging war” against the nation and had been convicted under sections 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) read with Section 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code by a Sessions Court in Gadhchiroli. The HC bench had allowed their bail appeals and ordered their immediate release. Shortly after the Bombay HC Order, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta demanded an urgent hearing against the appeal, claiming the acquittal was not justifiable.

Jyoti Jagtap Denied Bail in the Elgar Parishad Case by the Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court denied bail to Jyoti Jagtap, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgar Parishad Case under the anti-terror UAPA. Jyoti Jagtap, is reportedly a member of Kabir Kala Manch (KKM) — a cultural group branded as a front organisation of the banned CPI (Maoist). She was arrested by the NIA in September, 2020. According to NIA, it was Jagtap and others organised the Elgar Parishad on December 31, 2017 that led to violence the following day. While dismissing her appeal, the court added that NIA’s allegations were prima facie true.

The NIA submitted that Milind Teltumbde, who died last year, had discussed the Elgar Parishad event with the three Kabir Kala Manch members. It also claimed Maoist ideology was spread at the event with the help of these three and other persons. Jagtap was one of the main conspirators, alleged the agency. The agency also accused Jagtap of undergoing arms training at the Korchi forest.

AUGUST

Allahabad High Court denied bail to Siddique Kappan

The Allahabad High Court denied bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan in connection with the Hathras conspiracy case where he has been booked under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and other charges. Justice Krishna Pahal of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court observed that based on the investigation on record, the journalist “had no work at Hathras.” Kappan was arrested while he was on his way to Hathras in Uttar Pradesh where a Dalit woman had died after allegedly being gang-raped.

Later, the Supreme Court granted bail to Kerala journalist Siddique Kappan in September 2022. However, Kappan continued to remain incarcerated in jail because a local court in Lucknow had rejected his bail in the PMLA case on October 31. Even under the UAPA matter, in which he was granted bail, the verification sureties, including the one given by former vice-chancellor of Lucknow University, Roop Rekha Verma, have still not been completed by the authorities.

JULY

Plea filed to seek independent probe into alleged extra-judicial killings of Chhattisgarh tribals by security forces dismissed by SC

The Supreme Court dismissed a writ petition seeking independent investigation into alleged extra-judicial killings of tribals in Bastar, Chhattisgarh by security forces during anti-Naxal operations in 2009. The court additionally imposed an “exemplary cost” of Rs 5 lakhs on the first petitioner. The Central Government had reportedly filed an application seeking perjury proceedings against the petitioners alleging that they were depicting the executions carried out by Naxals as done by security forces. Denying the Centre’s plea to initiate such proceedings, the Court reportedly said that action can be taken against the petitioners for making false charges under IPC Section 211 and for criminal conspiracy.

JUNE

Zakia Jafri SLP claiming conspiracy in post-Godhra genocide dismissed by the Supreme Court

‘There was no infraction of the rule of law (in Gujarat in 2002)’, said the Supreme Court as it dismissed Ms. Zakia Jafri’s petition seeking re-investigation/further investigation into her allegation of a larger conspiracy in the 2002 Gujarat Riots. Zakia Jafri lost her husband, Congress leader Ehsaan Jafri, to the riots during an attack on their residence in Gulberg Society. Mrs. Jafri, along with CJP (through its Secretary Ms Teesta Setalvad) as second petitioner, contended that proper probe was never conducted, that the Protest Petition had in any case galvanised enough material from the SIT’s own investigation record to be put to trial and that the Magistrate could have both taken cognizance of existing material and ordered further investigation into those issues that required a further probe. Detailed arguments made over several days starting October 26, 2021, presented several examples of investigative lapses before the Supreme Court.

Petitioners pointed out, among other things, that the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) had fore-warned the state government’s home department of the build-up of communal tension and also cited the Tehelka sting operation tapes which were relied upon during trials in individual cases such as the Naroda Patiya trial

While deciding the case, the bench held that the SIT had investigated all that it was supposed to and there was no proof of conspiracy, as was being claimed by the petitioners.

Petition to quash FIR against Alt News Founder Mohammed Zubair dismissed by Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition filed by Alt News Co-founder, Mohammed Zubair challenging a FIR registered against him for a tweet in which he allegedly called three Hindu seers – Yati Narsinghanand Saraswati, Bajrang Muni Das and Anand Swaroop – ‘Hate mongers.’ Zubair was booked under section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in the said case. A bench comprising Justices Ramesh Sinha and Ajay Kumar Srivastava dismissed the petition on the ground that it lacked merit.

Serve at Cow Shelter for a Month, Bail Condition to Slaughter Accused: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad high court granted bail to an accused in a cow slaughter case on condition that he will serve at a cow shelter for a month. Besides, the accused was further asked to deposit Rs 1 lakh in favour of a registered cow shelter. A first information report (FIR) was lodged against Saleem under sections 379 (theft) of the Indian Penal Code and 3/8 of the Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act in Bareilly district. The accused had been languishing in jail for the past ten months, since August 3, 2021. After pursuing submissions made by the both parties, the court said that the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, the Court was of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Unnatural in Indian culture that father-in-law would rape daughter-in-law: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court’s Single-judge Bench of Justice Ajit Singh granted bail to a man accused of raping his daughter-in-law and held the accusations are falsely made, to humiliate his reputation in the society. The complainant of the case alleged that on March 01, 2018 at around 06:00 P.M, the accused (father-in-law of the complainant) along with other co-accused came to the house of the survivor’s brother, and upon discovering her to be alone, the father-in-law started abusing her, and then both the accused tried to rape her.  The Court then granted anticipatory bail to the applicant on the condition of furnishing a bail bond and two sureties.

Bail denied to Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira by the Bombay HC

In May, 2022 the Bombay High Court rejected a review petition filed by Varavara Rao, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira seeking default bail and factual corrections in the order made out against them by the lower court. They have all been accused in the Bhima Koregaon-Elgaar Parishad case.

On December 1, 2021, a bench led by Justice Shinde had granted default bail to a co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj while denying the bail to eight other accused in the case namely, which included the above mentioned three, on account of not filing their pleas before the lower court within the time stipulated by law unlike Sudha Bharadwaj. However, the said order was then challenged by the three mentioned above wherein they claimed that there was a factual error as they had applied for default bail on November 20, 2018, just a few days following Bharadwaj’s application but the Court failed to note that the lower court had rejected the default bail pleas filed by them, including Bharadwaj and two other co-accused, through a common order. Dr Varavara Rao has been granted bail on medical grounds by the Supreme Court.

APRIL

Meat and liquor sale ban refused to be struck down by the Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Writ Petition against the Uttar Pradesh administration for banning the sale of meat and liquor in Mathura-Vrindavan region. The State Government of Uttar Pradesh under its Notification dated September 10, 2021 had notified 22 wards of Mathura Vrindavan Nagar Nigam as ‘Holy Place of Pilgrimage’. The notification had banned the sale of liquor and meat within a 10 square kilometers radius around Krishna Janmabhoomi in Vrindavan, Mathura. On September 11, 2021 another consequential Order was passed by the Food Processing Officer, Food Safety and Drugs Administration, Mathura according to which the registration of shops selling meat and non-vegetarian restaurants were suspended with immediate effect. The said petition was then filed by a social worker in the High Court of Allahabad against the State Government’s decision to ban the sale of meat and liquor. 

While deciding the case, the High Court opined that since there are no averments about the Notification dated September 10, 2021, and the Government Order September 17, 2021 issued by the State Government, the Petitioner was not aggrieved by the same. Hence, the Court did not dwell into the validity of the aforesaid Notification and the Government Order.

NGT Order Shutting Down Factories Operating without Environmental Clearance Set Aside by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court set aside an order by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that had directed closure of some 15 manufacturing units which were permitted to operate without prior Environmental Clearance (EC) by the Haryana state government. The SC held that the manufacturing units which are generating employment for about 8,000 people and contributing to the economy, and cannot be shut down because of technical irregularity of not obtaining an EC prior to commencing operations, if such manufacturing units comply with environmental norms. While it is well known that it is mandatory to obtain EC as per the law, but in the present case, the state government appears to have erred in its assessment of the manufacturing units and contending that they did not require EC.

MARCH

Masterminds behind ‘S**li Deals’ and ‘B**li Bai’ apps granted bail by Delhi Court

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate of Patiala House Court in Delhi granted bail to Aumkareshwar Thakur, the alleged creator of ‘S**li Deals’ app as well as Neeraj Bishnoi, the alleged creator of ‘B**li Bai’ app. This came after bail had been first refused to both the accused in January 2021. Charge sheets had been filed against the ‘prime accused’ Aumkareshwar Thakur and Neeraj Bishnoi in early March 2021. Both accused have been charged with allegedly running the “S**li Deals and B**li Bai mobile apps to auction Muslim women in the virtual space.”

Related:

The best of Indian courts in 2020

The worst from Indian courts in 2020

The 10 worst laws of 2020

The post 2022: Looking back at negative rights jurisprudence from Indian courts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Hasdeo Arand forest

The apex court’s decision came in a case challenging the constitutional validity of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 (FRA). The orders of February 13, 2019, which were revisited two weeks later on February 26, took the view that anyone whose forest rights claims have been rejected could be regarded as an encroacher and therefore liable to be evicted.

The petitioners in this case were leading wildlife NGOs, who argued that several “bogus” claims are being filed in the garb of securing forest rights. They argued that corrective measures including evictions would only protect the legally deserving inhabitants. In response, forest rights groups campaigned strongly against what they called an attempt to sabotage the FRA process. Social media conversations and other public messages called this to be conspiracy of groups who believe “fortress conservation.” This approach visualises the future of forests without any human presence.

Exactly during this period, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) approved the diversion of 841.538 hectares of the Hasdeo Arand forests in Central India in favour of Parsa, a coal mine in Sarguja district of Chhattisgarh. For the last four years the tribal village assemblies of the area have asserted their constitutional right to refuse all mining proposals impacting this contiguous forest area important for Gond tribal communities, wildlife and the water security of the area. In response to their opposition, they received a notice rejecting their legally recognised community forest right under the FRA on the grounds that the exercise of their rights in coming “in the way of mining.” The villagers have also made several formal submissions pointing to the compromised legal process that allegedly includes forged signatures and manufactured consent, which are discussed further in the essay.

If the Supreme Court’s orders had not been restrained, then these villagers could also have been in line for eviction. Now their records will form part of the docket submitted by the state government before the Supreme Court. How the court proceeds on each claim will perhaps be clearer on July 24 when the case is listed again for hearing.

Forest rights and forest diversions

A law for forest rights

The FRA was enacted as an attempt to resolve injustice that tribal and other traditional forest dwelling communities had historically faced at the hands of a colonial forest bureaucracy. Alienation of land, restriction of access, forced evictions and lack of decision making over managing these lands are only a few manifestations. Fabricated arrests on account of trespass, ‘connivance’ with poachers and timber mafia have been other areas of conflict.

When the law was first envisaged, its primary focus was Scheduled Tribes as recognised in the Fifth and Sixth Schedules of India’s Constitution. The draft law was subsequently revised to include both tribal and other traditional forest dwelling communities who also have long-standing habitation and livelihood dependence on forests. The mainstream political traction for the FRA came from it being perceived as providing land rights that could help influence vote banks in electoral constituencies.

Once enacted the law did three key things. First, it laid out a detailed process through which rights subsisting as on December 13, 2005 could be whetted and recognised by the Gram Sabhas (village assemblies) and subsequently entered into government records. Second, it distinguished between the grant of individual rights up to four hectares and community forest rights for which there isn’t any defined limit. These individual rights can only be inherited and not transferred by sale. Thirdly, it clarified how forests should be governed, once rights are conferred allowing for conservation and management roles for rights holders. The law distinguishes between tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers who are required to show proof of residence for three generations or 75 years.

Conservation groups had expressed concerns that the grant of rights will be a threat to wildlife and break up already vulnerable forest areas that need to be protected. This is especially important for flagship species like tigers that as is argued require undisturbed areas for their survival. The inclusion of conservation duties for rights holders in the law did satisfy organisations and researchers supporting community-based conservation. However, concerns remained for all others who see creation of inviolate areas under laws such as Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 as the most effective way forward for conservation. This model proposes the relocation of human communities for the protection of wildlife.

Use of forests for extractive and infrastructure projects

The implementation of the FRA rests on the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) and respective state governments as forests are under concurrent jurisdiction of both central and state governments. However, this law does not specify what process should to be followed in case either community or individual forest need to be used for other uses such as mines, dams, highways, industries, power plants or renewable energy projects. The FRA recognises the Gram Sabha (village assembly) as supreme and vests these decisions with a Forests Rights Committee (FRC) once rights are recognised.

The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) has jurisdiction to regulate land use change in forests. This process is defined under the Forest Conservation Act (FCA), 1980 under which state governments can file applications seeking prior permissions for non-forest use and felling of trees. This permission is mandatory and subject to several conditions including carrying out compensatory afforestation for the loss of forest land.

The environment ministry clarified the link between the FRA and FCA circular, issued in 2009, which was sent to all state governments. The requirement of consent from Gram Sabhas and the completion of recognition process is mandatory prior to any forest diversion can be given effect. No forest land can be transferred to other uses unless the recognition of rights is complete and the state government submits consent of the affected Gram Sabha(s). This requirement is now clearly laid out in Forest Conservation Rules, 2017.

This clarification also opened the possibility of invoking the FRA compliance in cases where final approvals for forest diversions were pending. In the case of the Thoubal Multipurpose (Mapithel) project in Manipur, villagers invoked FRA compliance for a dam project first proposed in the 1980s. The construction of the project had been carried out without receiving final approval through which 595 hectares the forest land could be used for the project. In 2014, when the state government eventually approved the forest diversion in favour of the Irrigation and Flood Control Department of Manipur government, the FRA was in place, but its provisions not invoked.

The dam’s construction at tri-junction of Ukhrul, Senapati and Thoubal districts of Manipur was challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT). At first, the NGT concluded that the FRA compliance was a “dead issue” as 80 per cent of the project had already been completed. When this was questioned in a review petition, the state government argued that all rehabilitation measures and compensations have already been paid to the affected people back in 1993, and therefore the post facto compliance of the FRA is not in order.

In December 2017, the NGT overturned its earlier decision related to FRA compliance. Both the project proponent and the state governments were directed to bring the project in line with the legal requirements, including recognition of rights and consultation of the Gram Sabha. As of March 2019, this process was yet to be operationalised, even as the Mapithel Dam Affected Villages Organisation (MDAVO) had repeatedly drawn attention to the pendency.

Hasdeo Arand’s forests and coal blocks

Hasdeo Arand is celebrated as the largest un-fragmented forests in central India outside the official protected area system. This unbroken forest stretch is an important corridor for movement of flagship species like elephants and tigers. Spread across Korba, Sarguja and Surajpur districts of Chhattisgarh, these are also one of the most pristine sal (Shorea robusta) and teak forests in the country. Many other recorded species officially recorded by the forest department confirms that the area extremely rich in biodiversity.

Hasdeo Arand is also coalfield of covering 180,800 hectares comprising 18 coal concessions. A total of 150,200 hectares of this is very good quality forests. Studies have recorded that approximately 117,600 hectares have a canopy cover of over 40 per cent while an additional 11,600 hectares have a canopy cover of over 70 per cent. In a joint policy mapping by India’s coal and environment ministries in 2010, the entire area was officially recorded as a no-go area for mining. In 2007, the environment ministry approved proposal to declare 45,000 hectares of Hasdeo Arand as the Lemru Elephant Reserve, as an official recognition that conservation of species needs to be prioritised, and all measures taken to reduce threats. These conservation proposals hit the backburner once the plans for tapping the coal mining potential took primacy.

The forests are home to Gond tribals who farm and depend on the forests for their livelihoods. Their rights are not just protected under FRA but also the Panchayat Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA), as the administrative districts are constitutionally protected Fifth Scheduled Areas as discussed earlier. This gives special governance status to the Gram Sabhas in Hasdeo’s forest, including the legal right to be consulted prior to the implementation of developmental projects including mining. The forests also form the catchment area of Bango Dam built on the Hasdeo river back in the 1960s, which irrigates over 300,000 hectares of farmland. This river is on the main tributaries of the Mahanadi, one of India’s major rivers.

At present there are only two operational coal mines in the area: Chotia which is on the periphery and the Parsa East Ketan Besan (PEKB) well within these forests. Parsa, which is also strongly contested by the Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti (Save Hasdeo Struggle Committee) is only the third coal mine threatening to break up the forest contiguity and impact local livelihoods. PEKB’s operations have already added to human-elephant conflicts with several reported incidents of elephant movements around tribal settlements, agricultural fields and the railway track transporting coal from the PEKB mine.

The big debates

The orders of the Supreme Court and the coal mining case lend themselves to a deeper review of how the forest rights regime interacts with the demand for land for infrastructure projects. It also allows us understand how the unresolved concerns of wildlife conservation groups were reiterated in the interpretation of the apex court’s orders.

There are three big debates that bring together infrastructure, conservation and forest rights.

Community ownership and forest diversion

A central challenge for forest rights is whether forest rights re-distributes ownership of forest land or is limited to use rights. This has been one of primary conflicts related to forest governance in India. Forests are in the concurrent list of India’s constitution, which means both central and state governments have jurisdiction over how these areas are being used. Prior to 2006, a substantial administrative control over forests vested state governments, except for Sixth Schedule Areas in North East India that had special constitutional privileges. There were also areas where historical records community rights like nistar (community use rights) existed, where recognising ownership was a relatively easier task.

The FRA changed this dynamic. In individual rights, the land ownership is transferred to a claimant and the formal title, or patta officially entered in government record. In instances of community forest rights (CFR), the land remains under the ‘jurisdiction’ of the state forest department. The CFR can be granted for extracting forest produce without any restrictions or it can be to conserve and manage large tracts of land, as has historically been a practice.

It is this conflict, which is at the center of the environment ministry’s approval for the Parsa coal mine in Sarguja district of the central Indian state of Chhattisgarh. In order to use of 841.538 hectares of forests for the Parsa coal mine, the individual rights of four villages Salhi, Hariharpur, Fatehpur and Ghatbarra would either need to be acquired or surrendered by claimants.

The Chhattisgarh government’s letter based on which the forest diversion is approved claims that all the Gram Sabhas have consented surrendering over 614.219 hectares in lieu of ameliorative measures. The residents of Hariharpur village who are members of the Hasdeo Arand Bachao Sangharsh Samiti deny this, as there is no record of any Gram Sabha where such as consent was recorded. They have sent letters to the district authorities and the environment ministry until as recently as January. The ministry has, however, stood by the state government’s position.

For the community forest rights, where consent was hard to come by, the state administration revoked the community forest right title. Through an order dated January 8, 2016, the district level committee (DLC) under the FRA which informed the CFR holders of Ghatbarra village that their rights stand cancelled as it was disruptive of mining activity. The district collector, divisional forest officer (DFO) and district level representative of the tribal development department, signed the order. The village had received this CFR title to access 811 hectare of forests. This area overlaps the coal concessions of both the PEKB and the Parsa mines.

This decision came under intense scrutiny within the tribal affairs ministry and as the DLC took this step even though the legal framework of FRA does not envisage revocation as an option. The legal validity of this decision is yet to be confirmed within executive records and through a case pending before the Bilaspur high court. Meanwhile, the forest diversion for the Parsa coal concession was given effect by the environment ministry.

Recognition of rights or settlement of claims

The forest rights question is stuck somewhere in between the political recognition of existing habitation and use of land and the bureaucratic exercise of filing and settling claims. For the drafters of the law, the existence of rights was never a debate; it was setting right the historical alienation. What needed attention was the government record keeping where all previously subsisting rights were reconciled. Once that was done, rights holders would be able to politically assert their choices on how individual and community forest areas should be governed and managed.

The administrative implementation of the law has been mostly about the filing and settling of claims, just as it would be done for access to government schemes. At different points of time, the highest offices have pushed governments to settle forest rights in “campaign mode” or in an expedient manner. Milestones, timelines and record sheets have been emphasised more than a push for fair and deliberative processes so that recognition is not turned into mere administrative formality.

This contradiction continues to influence the manner in which forest rights are perceived, demanded and understood by both government and non-governmental actors. As part of Parsa coalmine’s approval condition, the state government permitted double the amount of degraded forest land for mandatory compensatory afforestation. This land was handed over in Korea district on the assurance of the forest department, where villagers are waiting for the paper work on their forest rights to be completed. It is not clear whether these rights have been rejected in official record, but the residents of Dhanpur village have been caught unawares.

This will be yet another instance that may be in the records submitted to the apex court. Would the court be interested in or be in a position to corroborate documents on a case-by-case basis? Will this process not reverse the decentralisation of forest governance that the FRA sought to out in the first place? For Dhanpur in Korea and Salhi, Hariharpur, Fatehpur, Ghatbarra, it is not their village assembly but a national court that may land up determining the rightfulness of their claim.

Wildlife and tribal people

One of the oldest divisions on forest rights are those related to wildlife conservation and tribal livelihoods. The conventional top down models of conservation envisaged enclosures for wildlife without any human interference, therefore all rights need to be extinguished or only partially allowed. This model continues to exist both in law and in wildlife practice, though other frameworks that encourage the leadership, wisdom and partnership of tribal and local communities in conservation have also evolved. Similarly, human rights groups have not always accepted the scientific arguments that some areas may need to be isolated for a threatened species to survive or revive. Those who have, speak about due process of decision making, only after full recognition of rights and no forced relocations in the name of creating conservation enclosures.

The question of whether forests should be for tribal communities or wildlife was also one of the key drivers for the case challenging the validity of the FRA in the Supreme Court. In their press release, the petitioners Wildlife First, Nature Conservation Society and Tiger Research and Conservation have argued that parceling forest areas into individual rights would lead to habitat fragmentation which has been “scientifically established as the most serious threat to long-term conservation of forests and biodiversity” that includes wildlife.

In response, groups such as Campaign for Survival and Dignity (CSD), instrumental in the enactment of the FRA, have called the petitioners’ claims as misleading and argued for the positive role of the forest rights act in encouraging community based conservation. Over three hundred conservationists signed a petition against the evictions, asking for the recall of the SC order as it was both anti conservation and against forest rights.

In the forests of Hasdeo Arand, both tribal communities and wildlife remain vulnerable. A government that has decided to pave the way for coal mining would want both tribals and wildlife out of the way. The official documents submitted for seeking diversion of forests for the mine, spring no surprise. The site inspection by the forest department only records the “occasional” presence of elephants even though Hasdeo Arand was once about to be declared an elephant reserve. Villagers routinely report the movement of elephants, and increased instances of human-elephant conflict due to forest disturbance. They remain organised against the opening of the Parsa coal mine, questioning the documents that record their willingness to give up their rights. The decision on executing forest diversion following the environment ministry’s approval now rests with the Chhattisgarh state government.

Negotiating outcomes with FRA

These three debates may be seen as manifestations of poor implementation of the FRA, but there is much more at stake. The FRA is a new legal tool, which is being used by a range of actors in various socio-political contexts. In each of these, it seems to have strengthened different people’s hands. In some cases, the forest bureaucracy has been able to utilise it more effectively to achieve its goals. In other places, campaign and community groups are able to use it to strengthen their case to resist extractive and infrastructure projects. Rights holders have also attempted to use the FRA to reopen pending issues of consent and compensations as was seen in the Mapithel Dam case.

It is because of this one can only come to a very dynamic assessment of the effects of FRA implementation on the ground. The FRA provides an opportunity for rights holders and governments to negotiate conservation strategies, socially relevant and economically gainful projects. But the Supreme Court’s decision has little place for the local. It has taken charge of the law, devoid of its multifaceted and site specific contexts and may proceed to assess the implementation deficit against a standard set of parameters. The FRA had taken several strides into institutionalising democratic decision-making centred on the Gram Sabha. This is what may be completely lost if the space of approving and rejecting forest rights claims shifts to the closed doors of a national court.

Courtesy: Counter View

The post Historical injustice and “bogus” claims: Forest rights, conservation and large infrastructure in India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
In the latest development, the chairperson of the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana state minorities commission of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, Abid Rasool Khan, has addressed a letter to the president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), Moulana Syed Mohammed Rabe Hasani Nadvi, urging the Board to immediately declare that henceforth the utterance talaq, talaq, talaq will be treated as one only and therefore revocable.
 
"Today we have a huge social problem in the Muslim community where literally lakhs of women all over the country are suffering because their men have divorced them by pronouncing talaq thrice [in one sitting]," the letter said.
 
"I would like to alert you that if you (AIMPLB) insist on the triple talaq, you will be committing injustice to literally lakhs of our sisters and opening the doors for the Supreme Court to strike down this law as it is seen as being in violation of human rights," it added.
 
Citing the examples of the Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987, providing for “the more effective prevention of the commission of sati and its glorification” which made the earlier act far more stringent and the recent verdict of the Bombay High Court upholding women’s right to equal access, on par with men, to the Haji Ali dargah, the letter warned of a similar fate awaiting the triple talaq practice.
 
Going a step further the letter also warned the Board and the Jamiatul Ulema that "this (triple talaq) has become an issue which has the potential to escalate and cause the eventual de-recognition of our personal law and the imposition of a uniform civil code," he said.
 

The post Declare Instant Talaq Practice Un-Islamic: Minorities Panel Chief Writes to AIMPLB appeared first on SabrangIndia.