Forest-dwelling communities share a deep relationship with nature, but more than that, they bear witness to history and provide insight into the management of forests. According to the State of Forests Report of 2019, approximately 300 million people are dependent on forests in India (PIB Delhi, 2023). The romanticisation of indigenous, forest-dwelling communities often limits the generational accumulated knowledge that is born out of their dependence and coexistence with the forest. For many of these communities, their identities are tied to their ancestral rights.
Yet, this has been one of the most tenacious struggles for legal recognition of land rights. The rights of land ownership for forest-dwelling communities has remained the same as set under colonial structures for decades after India’s independence. However, the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 became a momentous piece of legislation in the recognition of the rights of the forest- dwelling communities.
The act that came into force in 2008, also known as the Scheduled tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, which recognized the rights of the forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers to forest resources (MTA, n.d.). The legislative intent and objectives of the act were to recognize the historical injustices against the forest-dwelling communities and to ensure land tenure.
However, a fact-finding committee by the Call for Justice Delhi found that the implementation of the FRA has been scattered, especially around community forest rights, even two decades after its introduction. The fact-finding report looked at select districts of five states, which include Maharashtra, which is considered a model for the implementation of the FRA, as well as Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Assam, and Karnataka (Call for Justice, 2024). The report observed that there was insufficient focus on community forest rights, and more individual forest rights claims were granted. In other states like Uttarakhand, the number of claims granted is staggeringly low, with only 2.7% of the titles being distributed respectively (Raman, 2025).
The situation has gotten more complex with the more recent developments. The Forest Amendment Act of 2023 further complicated land rights concerns by removing community consent for the diversion of forest land for infrastructure or industrial projects. It further weakened the definition of the term ‘forests’ and ‘deemed forests’, excluding nearly 28% of India’s forest cover (Aredath, 2023). The effects have been visible through the struggles of the forest-dwelling communities. Recently, in Odisha’s Sijmali region, Adivasi and Dalit communities protested against the bauxite mining by Vedanta Limited, resulting in police arrests and the forceful removal of these communities (Padhi, 2026).
In recent times, it has become increasingly clear that legal frameworks, including the Wildlife Protection, the 2023 Forest Conservation Amendment, and even the recent Green Credit programme, have been built with an exclusion of the forest-dwelling community simply by not acknowledging the FRA’s guarantees. This paper questions that exclusion. It examines the gap between the Forest Rights Act promises and the legislative and bureaucratic forces working against it.
Protests & Eviction
Odisha is home to the third-largest tribal population in the state. As per the last Census, the total number of Scheduled Tribes (ST) in the state is 95,90,756 (PIB Delhi, 2026). It has also been recognized for its exceptionally rich mineral value with immense reserves for iron ore, bauxite, chromite, coal, and minerals, which have led to drastic mining expansions (MoM, n.d). In the fiscal year 2024-25, the mining of mineral resources in Odisha reported a total value of INR 64,785 crores, contributing 9.5 percent to the state’s Gross State Value Added (GSVA) and 23.1 percent to the industry gross value added (GVA) in 2025-26, supplying minerals such as chromite, bauxite, and iron ore ( Government of Odisha, 2026). Behind these numbers are conflicts and tensions that emerge from these expansions of mining projects.
The Adivasi and Dalit communities in Odisha’s Sijmali region have protested against the bauxite mining project, and have been met with intense police action and midnight raids in the villages of Kantamal and Talaampadar, leading to the arrests of more than 21 people. The villagers have also reported the loss of important documents, including Aadhaar cards and Voter IDs. (Padhi, 2026). Ground reports have also noted the role of indigenous women in leading the protests and protecting their homes (Rao, 2023; Sahu,2026). The women have collectively and religiously attended public hearings regarding the projects and raised objections, which they consider violate the FRA 2006, Land Acquisition Act, and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act 2013 (Rao, 2023).
Similar instances have appeared over the last few years from across the country. In the northeastern state of Assam, the state government began evicting nearly 300 families from 4.5 square kilometers of land in the Poba Reserve Forest for alleged encroachment on forest land (Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada, 2023). These evictions were based on the state government’s 2021 plans to expand forest cover in the state of Assam. Other evictions included communities around the Doyang Reserved Forests, situated along the state border between Assam and Nagaland. An estimated 2,000 families that resided in the area have been affected, with nearly 500 of those with valid forest dweller certificates from the Forest Rights Committee (FRC), as reported by an Assam Tribune story, which has since been removed from the official website of the state newspaper (Assam Tribune Facebook page, 2025).
The Supreme Court affirmed the state government’s actions, noting that the encroachment from the reserved forests contained sufficient procedural safeguards. However, the Supreme Court also noted that two other important aspects, first, as a policy decision, that occupation by a Gaon Panchayat in a forest is permissible as per the Jamabandi Register maintained by the forest Committee under the Forest Rights Act. Secondly, the examination of the merits of the parties involved in illegal occupation is to be made by the Committee (Abdul Khalek vs. The State of Assam, 2026).
Ultimately, the court order does include the need to safeguard the forest-dwelling communities, who have a right to the forest land. The recognition and legal documentation grant these communities the rights to their land, and these documents have been slow to come by. An action research report also points to the unique position that Assamese forest dwellers are in. They point out that local communities in Assam were historically not dependent on forests as their primary livelihood practice was agriculture, yet due to increasing natural calamities like floods, they have increased community dependency on forests; therefore, many communities cannot provide documentation and proof of a historic 75-year dependency as the FRA requires (Dr. R.K.B Law College, Nowgong Law College, and Kokrajhar Law College, 2024).
In 2024, more evictions were conducted, impacting nearly 450 families in the Bandarmatha reserve forests in Assam, to reduce the man-elephant conflict (Sinha, 2024). Since then, the number of people impacted has gone up to 2000. At the same time, the northeast has been identified as a new hotspot for rare earth and critical minerals by the Geographical Survey of India report, with 1400 million tonnes of limestone (GSI – Ministry of Mines – Government of India, 2025). These exploration and mining operations pivot from the conservation and protection of land and will likely bring more evictions with them.
Legislative Intent and the concerns
It increasingly appears that, despite the legal framework to protect the rights of the indigenous, adivasi, and forest-dwelling communities, these regulations are stacked against these very communities. The question arises: what was the legislative intent behind these original frameworks, and how has it shifted? Moreover, what conflicts emerge in the implementation of these laws?
The legislative intent behind the Forest Rights Act 2006 is not speculative; it is clear from the Act itself that it was enacted to remove the historical injustice against the forest-dwelling communities. Yet, in more recent years, the government in India has progressively moved away from decentralized governance of forests. With the Forest Conservation Amendment Act, which removed “deemed forests” from protection, and the provisions of compensatory afforestation. The intention behind this appears to be to lessen the hurdles for development and infrastructure projects. In fact, the Forest Conservation Amendment Act of 2023, despite backlash, encourages commercial activity in areas not recognized as forests, which makes nearly 25% of all forest areas in India vulnerable to urbanization, mining, and infrastructural development (Jose, 2024).
These show a clear shift in intention from conservation and protection to utilization over the last two decades. Two diverging policy angles take shape. While on one hand, forests as carbon sinks are being promoted through afforestation and green credits. On the other hand, naturally existing forests are removed from joint participation, community management, and protection in general.
Forest Conservation Laws, FRA, and Land Acquisition
The conflict between the forest conservation legislation and the FRA is one of approach. The Forest Conservation Act of India 1980 employs a top-down approach to conservation, with a centralized decision-making process and nearly all authority to divert forest land for non-forest purposes resting with the central government. The FCA 1980 was not sufficiently amended to recognize the rights of forest communities after the FRA was introduced in 2008.
This tension between the two legislations can be seen in the way the funds are disbursed to the states. As Nandwani points out, “the FCA requires the entities diverting forest land for non-forest purposes to pay an equal amount to the net present value of the forest land to states in a compensatory afforestation fund, which is managed by the ad hoc Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA) for the lost forest reserve.’ While the CAMPA 2016 does mention that forest dwellers should be consulted, these consultations are often not thorough (Nandwani, 2023). In many cases, language and literacy barriers remain to this day. Even the Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act 2023 did not right this wrong; in fact, it left deemed forests that may not have been notified or recorded in government records vulnerable to use and exploitation.
Green Credit Programme
The Green Credits Programme (GCP), which was started by the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MoEF&CC), was launched in October 2023 under the Environment Protection Act of 1986 (GCP, n.d). The intention behind the programme was to promote afforestation by giving ‘Green Credits’ for voluntary plantation activities; these are non-tradable incentives that can be utilized to fulfill the compensatory afforestation compliance, environment, social, and governance (ESG) disclosures and corporate social responsibility (CSR) (GCP, n.d).
Companies, the public sector, and non-government entities can use these to offset some of their activities. However, the loophole for compensatory afforestation in practice can sometimes mean clearing forest areas with a history and livelihood dependency and planting trees in a completely different part of the country. Forests are naturally occurring landscapes that have rich biodiversity, and forest-dwelling communities often rely on forest produce. For instance, for the large-scale infrastructural development in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, which risks displacing the Shompen indigenous group, the CAMPA submission has been made for Haryana and Madhya Pradesh (Survival International & Survival International, 2025; PIB Delhi, 2026).
Despite offsetting the cost of commercial activities, these compensatory afforestation and green credit programmes can disregard the cost to human and community livelihoods. As the report by Vats (2026) suggests, the internal documents that show the “restoration” of sites under the GCP have been used to evict communities. The report also highlights that while the programme was intended to attract private sector and individuals, it has currently only attracted investment from state-run oil, coal, and power companies. Between March and April 2025, inspection reports have marked ‘encroachments’ in states like Bihar and Assam, which are to be used for plantation and forest battalions.
Criminalization under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
Some reports highlight how the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA) of 1972 is increasing the criminalization of these communities. The WPA imposes penalties for crimes like poaching, illegal trade, and smuggling endangered species; however, the WPA has been stacked against persons from oppressed groups. As the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability (CJPA) Project report from Madhya Pradesh highlights, nearly 29.5% of the accused arrested between 2011 and 2020 belonged to an oppressed caste group (CJPA, 2023).
The interviews that were conducted by the CJPA found that even for self-defence, the WPA provisions were provoked. The report further notes that the creation of protected areas has led to forced displacement. One case study highlighted is that of the Kanha Tiger Reserve, in the process of which multiple communities, including the Gond and Baiga (recognized as particularly vulnerable tribal groups), were displaced. Interviews with the families have highlighted how their livelihoods have been impacted since the displacement in the 1970s, with loss of land to practise shifting cultivation and no access to essential forest produce such as mahua (CJPA, 2023).
Another thing these legal frameworks did not make room for is the tonal density of social classes, religious tensions within forest-dwelling communities. It looks at it through a purely rights-based lens, which works in a complete system with no fault lines, but it is increasingly clear that social demographics and marginalisation persist in the process of acquiring rights and recognition, even under these seemingly neutral laws.
Conclusion
The Forest Rights Act of 2006 not only brought to the forefront the deep relationship between forest-dwellers and the forest but also highlighted the struggles they face. It attempted to create protections for these communities and make their access to forests, forest produce, and the land a legal right. On paper, it does just that. However, evidence and reports show that the FRA does not create these safeguards as strongly as promised. In fact, with the new conservation and pro-climate laws, including the Forest Conservation Amendment, the Green Credits Programme, and the Compensatory Afforestation, conditions are created for the quiet removal of these communities from land that belongs to them.
The Forest Conservation Amendment Act 2023 departs from the logic that the FRA put forth: that development and conservation are inclusive, and people and communities are participants in the protection of forests. The FCA promotes a different policy logic that positions development and conservation as separate tracks, where one is for industry growth and is managed at a distance from communities that have helped sustain it.
Twenty years after the act was first introduced, the gap that appears most clearly is the failure of nexus in law and policy between conservation, development, and protection of rights. It appears through policy shifts that there is a consistent prioritisation of land as an economic asset, or even one that must be protected to the exclusion of the communities that hold legal rights over it. Yet, the resistance to this exclusion has also been equally consistent. With women in Sijmali attending every public hearing and communities in Assam documenting their rights despite administrative obstacles.
The application of the FRA also needs focus; the community forest titles should receive the same kind of administrative attention that individual rights are granted. The path forward is not to create new laws but to create a nexus between existing laws that make the FRA more operational.
