Madhya Pradesh has put on hold a forest department directive concerning community forest resource claims after objections were raised over its compatibility with the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Madhya Pradesh forest rights issue came into focus after the August 6 order instructed field officials to receive community forest resource claims during meetings planned on August 15. Critics argued that the directive appeared to give the forest department a role that the law assigns to the Gram Sabha.
On September 30, Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force Subharanjan Sen issued an order keeping the August directive in abeyance. The order said fresh instructions on community forest resources would be issued by the state government as required. The move followed intervention from Union Minister of State for Tribal Affairs Durgadas Uikey, members of a state task force and civil society groups.
The issue concerns how claims over community forest resources are processed under the Forest Rights Act and the extent of the Gram Sabha’s authority in determining such rights.
Madhya Pradesh forest rights order triggers questions over CFR claims
The August 6 directive, issued by Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Manoj Kumar Agarwal, instructed several categories of field-level forest officers to receive claims relating to community forest resource rights. These included chief conservators of forests, divisional forest officers and field directors of national parks and sanctuaries.
The Madhya Pradesh forest rights directive drew objections because the Forest Rights Act places the initial responsibility for determining forest rights with the Gram Sabha. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs says the Gram Sabha is empowered to initiate the process for determining individual and community forest rights.
The Act defines a community forest resource as customary common forest land within a village’s traditional or customary boundaries. The definition also covers reserved forests, protected forests and protected areas such as sanctuaries and national parks where communities had traditional access.
This definition became important in the objections raised against the Madhya Pradesh directive, which was alleged to have narrowed the areas where such claims could be considered.
Also Read | Why New Delhi is eyeing Hotan to bypass Pakistan
Gram Sabha role becomes central to forest rights dispute
Union minister Durgadas Uikey wrote to Chief Minister Mohan Yadav seeking changes to or suspension of the directive, saying it was not in consonance with the Forest Rights Act, according to the report. He also highlighted the statutory role of the Gram Sabha in the claims process.
Under the FRA, the Gram Sabha initiates the process, receives claims, consolidates and verifies them, prepares maps of claimed areas and passes a resolution. The matter then moves to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and subsequently the District Level Committee.
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs describes the Gram Sabha as a highly empowered body under the law, with responsibilities extending beyond claims to the protection and conservation of forests, biodiversity and other ecological resources.
The dispute has also drawn criticism from Milind Thatte and Sharadchandra Lele, members of a task force headed by the Madhya Pradesh chief minister for effective implementation of the FRA and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act. Civil society organisations have also raised concerns over the directive.
They pointed to what they described as misconceptions among some district officials, including the belief that community forest resource rights cannot be recognised in reserved or protected forests.
Also Read | What are the flashpoints behind India’s growing debate over political legitimacy?
What the Forest Rights Act says about community claims
The Madhya Pradesh forest rights controversy has renewed attention to the Forest Rights Act, enacted in 2006 to recognise the rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers whose customary rights have historically not been formally recorded.
The law recognises several forms of individual and community rights, including rights relating to access to forest resources and the protection, regeneration and management of community forest resources for sustainable use. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs states that the legislation was intended to address historical injustice while strengthening the role of forest-rights holders in conservation.
The ministry’s official FRA material also lists specific executive directions dealing with Gram Sabha jurisdiction and the recognition and vesting of community forest resource rights.
For Madhya Pradesh, the immediate development is that the August directive will no longer operate while it remains in abeyance. The state government is expected to issue further instructions on community forest resources.
The Madhya Pradesh forest rights dispute therefore remains centred on implementation rather than the existence of the rights themselves. The next set of state instructions will determine how the government addresses concerns about CFR claims, the scope of eligible forest areas, and the statutory role of Gram Sabhas.