A forest clearance may begin in a government file, but its consequences are felt in villages.
Domino; Wikimedia Commons
A forest clearance may begin in a government file, but its consequences are felt in villages. For communities living in and around forests, these landscapes are much more than areas marked on government maps. They provide food, fuel, fodder, medicinal plants and water. They support livelihoods and, for many tribal communities, are closely connected to culture, traditions and sacred places. Diverting forest land for mines, dams, roads and other infrastructure can therefore change everyday life in ways that may not be visible in a project report.
This is why a recent debate over the role of Gram Sabhas in forest clearances matters. A memorandum issued by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) on 31 August 2026 stated that the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), does not require Gram Sabha consent for forest clearance at Stage II. It also said that the matter did not fall within the ministry’s purview. The position has drawn criticism from forest rights groups and former Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, who have questioned the ministry’s interpretation of the law.
At the centre of the debate is a fundamental question: when a forest on which communities depend is proposed for diversion, what role should the people living there have in the decision? Understanding this requires looking at the rights the FRA was enacted to recognise and the responsibilities it assigned to Gram Sabhas.
Enacted in 2006, the Forest Rights Act sought to address what the legislation describes as the “historical injustice” faced by forest-dwelling communities. For generations, many of these communities lived in and depended on forests without their customary rights being formally recognised by the state.
The law changed this framework by recognising individual and community rights and giving Gram Sabhas an important role in the process. Section 5, for instance, gives Gram Sabhas and forest rights holders responsibilities and powers relating to the protection of wildlife, forests and biodiversity. MoTA’s own description of the Act also emphasises the role of Gram Sabhas in protecting and managing community forest resources.
These provisions matter because diverting forest land is not simply a change in its legal status. The effects can extend to people who collect forest produce, graze livestock, cultivate land, depend on streams and springs or use particular areas for cultural and religious purposes.
A project may require only a defined area of land, but its effects can reach much further. A road may cut across a traditional route, a dam may alter access to a river or forest, and mining may affect water sources and places considered sacred. The people living in these landscapes often have a detailed understanding of these local conditions.
The Gram Sabha provides a local institution through which this knowledge and experience can enter formal decision-making. However, forest clearance procedures and the recognition of forest rights have often operated as separate processes. The latest memorandum has brought this tension into focus.
The 31 August 2026 memorandum has attracted attention because of its interpretation of the relationship between the FRA and forest clearance. It says that the FRA does not provide for Gram Sabha consent for forest clearance at Stage II and that the issue, therefore, does not fall within the ministry's mandate.
Critics see this as a significant departure from the understanding that the recognition and protection of forest rights should be considered before forest land is diverted.
The Campaign for Survival and Dignity, a national platform of Adivasi and forest-dwelling organisations, has strongly criticised the ministry's position. It argues that MoTA cannot distance itself from questions involving forest rights when the ministry is responsible for the implementation of the FRA.
Former environment minister Jairam Ramesh has also questioned the memorandum's interpretation. As reported by ThePrint, he has pointed to earlier positions and guidelines concerning the relationship between implementation of the FRA and forest diversion.
There is, however, an important legal distinction that should not get lost in the political debate. The FRA does not simply say that "100 per cent Gram Sabha consent" must be obtained for every forest-diversion proposal. The legal position is more complicated. The significance of the Gram Sabha comes from the broader rights and powers created under the FRA, particularly its provisions concerning community forest resources and the protection of forests.
This means that the present debate should not be reduced to a question of whether the law contains a single sentence requiring consent. The more fundamental issue is how the different laws and procedures governing forests and forest rights are meant to work together. That question becomes particularly important when the proposed diversion affects recognised community rights.
The Niyamgiri case in Odisha remains an important example of Gram Sabha participation in decisions concerning forests and development. The dispute involved a proposal to mine bauxite in the Niyamgiri Hills, where forest-dependent communities, including the Dongria Kondh, live. For these communities, the hills were not merely a source of land or minerals. They were closely connected to their livelihoods, cultural practices and religious beliefs.
In 2013, the Supreme Court directed that Gram Sabhas should consider the communities’ religious, cultural and community rights before the mining proposal could proceed. Twelve Gram Sabhas subsequently rejected the proposed project.
The case demonstrated why local institutions matter when development projects affect people's lives and cultural landscapes. It also highlighted the difference between consultation and meaningful participation.
Simply informing a community that a project has been approved offers little opportunity to influence the decision. Meaningful participation requires people to examine the proposal, understand its implications and formally present their concerns to the authorities.
This does not mean that every objection raised by a Gram Sabha should automatically stop a development project, or that all infrastructure projects are incompatible with forest rights. Rather, decisions are more informed when people who understand the local landscape have a genuine opportunity to participate.
The current controversy offers an opportunity to improve the forest clearance process and clarify the role of Gram Sabhas, rather than weaken their participation.
The first step is to address legal and administrative ambiguity. The government needs to clearly explain how the FRA, forest clearance procedures and Gram Sabha powers relate to one another. Communities, state governments and project proponents should not have to navigate conflicting interpretations of laws and government instructions.
Forest rights must also be properly recognised before decisions affecting them are taken. Gram Sabhas cannot fully assess the consequences of forest diversion when community forest rights have not been mapped or recorded.
Access to information is equally important. Villagers need clear explanations, preferably in local languages, about the area proposed for diversion, the resources that may be affected, rehabilitation arrangements, environmental impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Technical documents alone may not provide communities with the information they need to understand a project.
Technical support can help bridge this gap. Maps, satellite images and project plans may be familiar to officials and consultants but difficult for villagers to interpret. Independent facilitation can help communities understand the proposals and participate meaningfully, rather than reducing the process to a formal requirement.
The government must also distinguish between administrative delays and genuine disagreement. If a Gram Sabha meeting has not taken place because of an administrative failure, the authorities should facilitate the meeting and establish a transparent timeline. However, when a properly constituted Gram Sabha meets, considers a proposal and raises substantive concerns, these should be documented and examined rather than dismissed as obstacles to clearance.
Transparency is another essential requirement. Information about whether forest rights have been recognised, whether Gram Sabha meetings have taken place, what concerns were raised and how authorities responded should be publicly accessible alongside the different stages of forest clearance.
India needs infrastructure and economic development, but this need not mean choosing between projects and people's rights. The Forest Rights Act was enacted to recognise that forest dwelling communities have rights and that their knowledge and participation have a place in forest governance.
The debate following the MoTA memorandum is therefore about more than one administrative instruction. It raises wider questions about the place of local communities in decisions concerning India's forests.
The way forward need not be an absolute veto for every Gram Sabha, nor should it involve removing their meaningful role. Communities must have access to information, their legally recognised rights must be settled before forest diversion, and their concerns must be recorded and addressed by the authorities.
Forest clearance may appear to be an administrative decision on paper. On the ground, it can affect people's homes, livelihoods, water, culture and relationship with the landscape. Ensuring that Gram Sabhas have a meaningful voice is essential to making these decisions more informed, transparent and accountable.