The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006

[1] Supporters of the Act claim that it will redress the "historical injustice" committed against forest dwellers, while including provisions for making conservation more effective and more transparent.

To put these numbers in perspective, if considered a nation by themselves, they would form the 13th largest country in the world, even though they do not represent any singular, monolithic culture.

However, rights were rarely recognized by the authorities and in the absence of real ownership of the land, the already marginalized local dwellers suffered.

Section 2(o) refers to "any member or community" for this purpose, and hence if an OTFD village establishes its eligibility under the Act, there is no need for every individual to do so separately.

The screening committees consist of three government officials (Forest, Revenue, and Tribal Welfare departments) and three elected members of the local body at that level.

This amendment transferred the rights of forests from tribal communities to large corporations such as private mining and pharmaceutical companies.

The amendment allows district collectors to override the approval of Gram Sabhas and transfer the forest land to private entities.

[25] In doing so, the amendment revokes the participatory rights of the forest dwellers by making them bystanders to actions that directly impact their livelihood.

[26] The new 2022 Rules are seen as emblematic of the Modi administration's pro-business focus at the expense of environmental protection and the rights of indigenous communities.

Interpretation regarding Deadline cut-off-date: M.Sai Sampath, Founder-President ECO FAWN Society had actively engaged in environment and wildlife conservation who also appeared before Hon'ble Parliamentary Committee suggested for incorporation of "Deadline cut-off-date" to complete whole process of identification, verification and recognition of Forest Rights to genuine tribals and other traditional forest dwellers in the country.

[37] Six advertisements were run by the organisation across major Indian news and television channels, ads which continue to be available on their website.

The group criticised the Forest Rights Act as having the potential to cause huge floods, droughts, and to increase global warming.

In response to questions from a newspaper, Vanashakti claimed to have been formed over "a dinner table conversation" as a result of deep concern about the Forest Rights Act and the lack of media attention to it.

In particular, the final form of the law is said to make it easier to exclude some categories of both tribal and non-tribal forest dwellers, to have undermined the democratic nature of the processes in the Act and to have placed additional hindrances and bureaucratic restrictions on people's rights.

[40] The Campaign for Survival and Dignity described the final form of the law as "both a victory and a betrayal" in their official statement on the occasion.

[41] The one-year delay in the notification of the Act and the Rules was the subject of considerable Parliamentary and political uproar in the winter session of the Indian Parliament in 2007.

[44] The Campaign for Survival and Dignity welcomed the notification but sharply criticised a number of provisions in the Rules, claiming that they undermined democracy and the spirit of the Act.

In the current situation the rights of the majority of tribals and other traditional forest dwellers are being denied and the purpose of the legislation is being defeated.

Unless immediate remedial measures are taken, instead of undoing the historical injustice to tribal and other traditional forest dwellers, the Act will have the opposite outcome of making them even more vulnerable to eviction and denial of their customary access to forests... both the Central and the State governments have actively pursued policies that are in direct violation of the spirit and letter of the Act.

This order invited challenges from various quarters as in many cases request was cancelled on non availability of documents by district level committee under the act.