Constitutionality of the FRA

Case Description

The Forest Rights Act [Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act] or the FRA was enacted in 2006 to protect the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers. The purpose was to address historical injustices by recognising their rights over ancestral land and habitats, which were overlooked during colonial and post-independence forest laws. The Act came into force on 1 January 2008. 

The legislation, however, met with criticism from wildlife conservationists and other animal rights activists. They claimed that forests must be conserved to protect wildlife and not people. The FRA, they argued, was in direct conflict with other forest and wildlife protection legislations like the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and the Forest Conservation Act of 1980.

In 2008, Wildlife First, Nature Conservation Society and the Tiger Research and Conservation Trust moved the Supreme Court in a writ petition, challenging the constitutional validity of the FRA. Amongst other things, they argued that the Act has led to deforestation and encroachment upon forest land. Another Writ Petition filed by Wildlife Trust and three other parties were clubbed together with this petition. 

Rights under the FRA

According to the FRA, individuals seeking rights must demonstrate that they have been and continue to either (i) reside on forests or forestland, or (ii) are dependent on forest produce for their livelihood. The Act recognises two classes of persons who are eligible to claim rights under it: 

• Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes
• Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) – communities who have been dependent on forests for a minimum of 75 years.

One of the petitioners’ main prayers is to recover the land from ‘encroachers’ whose claims had been rejected under the FRA. In 2014, the petitioners filed an interlocutory application, highlighting the damage caused by illegal forest dwellers and urging the Court to address it.

On 13 February 2019, the Supreme Court ordered States to evict all individuals whose claims were rejected. Further, it directed the Forest Survey of India to conduct a satellite survey and place on record encroachment positions before and after evictions. Finally, it directed the Chief Secretaries of various States to submit affidavits explaining why they had failed to evict individuals who had had their claims rejected.

On 28 February 2019, the Court stayed its own order owing to backlash. However, the bench directed states to submit a report on whether due process had been followed in rejecting claims.

Following the Court’s February 2019 order to evict individuals whose claims under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) had been rejected, lack of compliance was persistent. Despite a deadline set in August 2019, several states failed to submit polygon data, which maps the land of the rejected claims geospatially, making it difficult to assess the true extent of unauthorised occupation of forest land. 

Subsequently, the FSI submitted that satellite imagery analysis of over 14,000 rejected claims showed that around 65 percent of them were in areas that had forest cover prior to 2005. This raised fresh concerns about the manner in which FRA was being implemented. By 30 November 2024, over 77 lakh hectares of forest land—roughly the size of the state of Assam—had been granted under the FRA since 2008. This expansion has fueled ecological concerns about habitat fragmentation, a scientifically established consequence of human settlements within forest areas. 

Meanwhile, concerns over alternative resettlement have also gained traction. While some communities seek voluntary relocation with proper infrastructure, others fear forced eviction. Voluntary relocation is when communities willingly move from their traditional lands, typically in exchange for improved infrastructure, livelihood opportunities and government support, rather than being forcibly evicted.

Prayers by the petitioners

The case was dormant since 2019 till March 2025 when it was reported that it will be listed before the top court again on 2 April 2025. The reliefs sought by the petitioners in the case are as follows:

1. Issue a writ of mandamus to quash the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
2. Declare that Parliament lacks the legislative competence to enact the Act, rendering the Tribal Rights Act unconstitutional and a colorable exercise of powers.
3. Strike down the inclusion of Sanctuaries and National Parks within the definitions of community forest reserve and forest land under Sections 2(a) and 2(d) as unconstitutional.
4. Recognise that extending the Act to Sanctuaries and National Parks violates the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, and is against public interest.
5. Invalidate the extension of forest rights to Other Traditional Forest Dwellers under Sections 3(1) and 4(1)(b).
6. Hold the procedure for vesting forest rights and the composition of Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional, and District Level Committees unconstitutional.
7. Declare the Forest Act unconstitutional for violating Article 21, read with Articles 48A and 51A.
8. Hold the Act invalid as it contravenes sustainable development principles and the Directive Principles under Article 48A and fundamental duties under Article 51A.
9. Declare the Act contrary to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, and against public interest. 
10. Declare that the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition Of Forest Rights) Rules, 2008, as ultra vires and unconstitutional.
11. Hold the 2008 Rules as arbitrary, unreasonable, vague, illegal, against public interest and therefore invalid and void.
12. Set aside the extension of the forestland occupation date to 13.12.2005 as arbitrary, unreasonable, and unconstitutional.