Supreme Court Reviews Forest Rights Act Protecting Livelihoods

Supreme Court Hears Defence of Forest Rights Act: Centre Says Law Protects Livelihoods and Dignity of Forest Communities

Government tells court that FRA is vital for tribal welfare and does not conflict with wildlife laws

Petitioners argue rules under the Act dilute conservation, but Centre insists law ensures equity and justice

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 24, 2025: The Supreme Court of India is once again at the centre of a crucial debate on the balance between environmental conservation and social justice. The case concerns the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, a landmark law that recognises the rights of tribal and other traditional forest-dwelling communities over land and resources they have depended on for generations.

The Union government, through the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, has strongly defended the Act and its 2012 Rules, which are under challenge. In its affidavit, the Centre argued that the FRA is not just about land ownership but about restoring dignity, livelihoods, and cultural identity to millions of forest-dependent people.

The Case Before the Supreme Court

The petitioners have questioned the validity of the 2012 Rules framed under the FRA, claiming they conflict with existing wildlife and forest protection laws. They argue that the rules could weaken conservation efforts and lead to further encroachment in ecologically sensitive areas.

The Centre, however, has rebutted these claims. It told the court that the FRA was designed to correct “historical injustice” faced by forest communities who were denied rights for decades under colonial and post-colonial forest laws.

The government also clarified that the absence of a sunset clause (a fixed deadline for filing claims) in the FRA was intentional. This, it said, ensures that no arbitrary timelines are imposed on vulnerable communities who may not have the resources or awareness to claim their rights quickly.

What the Forest Rights Act Provides

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, commonly known as the FRA, gives legal recognition to the rights of forest-dwelling communities.

Key provisions include:

Individual rights: To cultivate forest land for livelihood.
Community rights: Over minor forest produce like bamboo, honey, and medicinal plants.
Habitat rights: For Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs).
Management rights: To protect, regenerate, and manage community forests.

The Act was hailed as a progressive step towards empowering tribal communities and ensuring their participation in forest governance.

Centre’s Defence of the Law

In its affidavit, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs made several key arguments:

Livelihood and dignity: The FRA is not limited to land ownership but is about restoring dignity and livelihoods to communities who have lived in forests for centuries.
No conflict with conservation: The government said the Act does not override wildlife or forest protection laws but works alongside them.
Equity and justice: The law ensures equity by recognising the rights of marginalised groups who were historically excluded.
2012 Rules are valid: The Centre defended the rules, saying they were framed to make the law more effective and participatory.

The affidavit described the petitioners’ claims as “misguided”, stressing that the FRA is essential for both social justice and sustainable forest management.

Petitioners’ Concerns

The petitioners, including conservation groups, have argued that:

The FRA could lead to large-scale diversion of forest land.
The 2012 Rules dilute the role of forest officials in scrutinising claims.
Wildlife habitats could be threatened if claims are not carefully verified.

They have urged the court to strike down or amend the rules to ensure that conservation goals are not compromised.

The Larger Debate: Rights vs. Conservation

This case highlights a long-standing debate in India: how to balance the rights of forest communities with the need to protect forests and wildlife.

Supporters of FRA argue that empowering local communities leads to better conservation outcomes, since they have a direct stake in protecting forests.
Critics worry that granting land rights could open the door to deforestation, mining, and commercial exploitation.

The Supreme Court has previously intervened in FRA-related cases. In 2019, it ordered the eviction of lakhs of claimants whose applications were rejected, but later stayed the order after concerns were raised about due process and the risk of mass displacement.

Voices from the Ground

For millions of tribal and forest-dwelling families, the FRA is not an abstract legal issue but a matter of survival.

Tribal leaders say the law has given them recognition and security after decades of uncertainty.
Women’s groups highlight that community rights under FRA have improved access to forest produce, boosting household incomes.
Environmentalists remain divided: some see FRA as a tool for participatory conservation, while others fear misuse.

Supreme Court’s Role Going Forward

The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences. It must weigh:

The constitutional promise of justice and equality for marginalised groups.
The urgent need to protect forests and biodiversity in the face of climate change.
The practical challenges of implementing FRA fairly and transparently.

The Bench has asked the Centre to clarify how dwelling houses for forest dwellers can be constructed under FRA without violating the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This indicates that the court is keen to find a balance between tribal welfare and environmental protection.

Conclusion

The ongoing case on the Forest Rights Act is more than a legal battle — it is a test of India’s commitment to both social justice and ecological sustainability. The Centre’s strong defence of the law shows that it sees FRA as a cornerstone of tribal empowerment.

At the same time, the concerns raised by conservationists cannot be ignored. The Supreme Court’s verdict will likely shape the future of forest governance in India, determining whether the country can truly balance the twin goals of protecting nature and protecting people.

For now, the eyes of millions of forest dwellers — and environmentalists — remain fixed on the court.