The Congress on Tuesday termed as "shocking" the alleged shift in the stance of the tribal ministry on the consent role of the Gram Sabha under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, saying it reflected a serious misunderstanding of the law and an abdication of the ministry's statutory responsibility.
The opposition party said the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) cannot simply distance itself from the operation of the FRA, 2006, as doing so would not only undermine the law's statutory scheme but also make a mockery of the law and the communities it was enacted to protect.
Congress general secretary in-charge of communications Jairam Ramesh said that on August 31, 2026, the tribal affairs ministry had communicated to the Union Ministry of Power that there was no provision in the FRA, 2006 requiring Gram Sabha consent for projects involving diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, and that "such matters" therefore fell outside its jurisdiction.
"This shocking stance of the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs reflects a serious misunderstanding of the law and an abdication of the Ministry's statutory responsibility," Ramesh said in a statement.
It was particularly concerning because it contradicted the ministry's own earlier guidelines and communications, the former environment minister said, adding: "Is it under pressure from the Modani conglomerate and other mining companies?
In its letter dated July 12, 2012, to state governments, the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) had clarified how Section 4 of the FRA, 2006 was required to be complied with before the diversion of forest land and relocation of forest-dwelling communities," Ramesh said.
Further, at a meeting with the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) on January 12, 2018, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs had expressly objected to the environment ministry's proposal to dilute the requirement of FRA compliance at Stage-I of the forest diversion process, he said.
It had rightly warned that deferring the requirement to a later stage could make FRA compliance a "fait accompli", Ramesh said.
Subsequently, on December 28, 2018, the MoEFCC had clarified in Parliament that recognition and settlement of rights under the FRA, 2006, and the consent of the Gram Sabha were mandatory for proposals involving diversion of forest land, he said.
"The position is also reflected in the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023. Rule 11(7) requires compliance with the FRA, 2006 and settlement of rights under the FRA, 2006 before an order permitting diversion can be issued," Ramesh said.
Section 5 of the FRA, 2006 empowers the Gram Sabha to protect the rights and resources of forest-dwelling communities recognised under Section 3 of the FRA, 2006, he said.
"Read with the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in the famed case of Orissa Mining Corporation versus Ministry of Environment & Forests, April 2013 (known popularly as the Niyamgiri case), these provisions establish the central role of the Gram Sabha in decisions affecting forest rights and resources," the former environment minister said.
"These safeguards are not technicalities. Tribal and forest-dwelling communities have relied on the FRA, 2006 and other legal protections to defend their jal, jangal, zameen rights. The FRA, 2006 clearly designates the Ministry of Tribal Affairs as the nodal ministry for implementing the law, and therefore, for protecting the rights it guarantees," Ramesh said.
The tribal affairs ministry cannot simply distance itself from the operation of the FRA, 2006 when those very rights are at stake and under real threat, he said.
"To do so would not only undermine the statutory scheme of the FRA, 2006 but would, in fact, make a mockery of the law and of the communities it was enacted to protect," the Congress general secretary said.
(With inputs from PTI)
