[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Granting a respite to nearly 12 lakh tribals and forest dwellers, the Supreme Court today (Thursday, Feb 28) put on hold its February 13 order directing the eviction of all those whose claims for forest land rights have been rejected under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006.

The Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, and MR Shah, however, said “the mighty and the undeserving” who have encroached on forest lands would be shown no mercy.

The Bench acknowledged the need to further delve into whether due process was followed by gram sabhas and States’ authorities under the FRA before the claims for forest rights of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST) and other traditional forest dwellers (OTFD) were finally rejected.

It directed the states to submit affidavits detailing the procedure adopted to assess the claims under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The affidavits must also provide details of the authorities that decided these claims.

Also Read: IAF pilot Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman to be released tomorrow, says Imran Khan

When the hearing commenced today, Justice Arun Mishra asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta why the Centre was “caught in a slumber” and approached the Court only now, when the previous order in the case was passed in 2016.

Mehta, accepting that there is no explanation for the same, submitted that the Act only talks about the process for assessing claims and does not provide for eviction.

It was also submitted by the Centre, through Mehta, that the main challenge is to the Constitutional validity of the Act and it affects a large number of forest dwellers.

The February 13 order of the Supreme Court causes serious prejudice to the lives of the forest dwellers, Mehta submitted before the Court. At this point, Justice Arun Mishra asked the parties,

“Are these people (living in the forest) all tribals or normal people living there.”

Nearly 12 lakh ST and OTFDs across 16 States faced the brunt of the apex court’s order of eviction on February 13.

The apex court has now given the States four months’ time to file affidavits responding to allegations that there was a high rate of rejection of claims, non-communication of rejection orders, unrealistic timelines in deciding claims, irregular holding of State Level Monitoring Committee meetings, lack of support from the district administrations concerned in providing revenue or forest maps, rejection of claims despite incomplete or insufficient evidence, etc. In fact, the court wants to know whether tribals and OTFDs were ousted from forest lands on the basis of sketchy, incomplete information and data.

The order came on an application by the Centre to modify the February 13 order. The government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, submitted the order has affected a “large number of families”. The Centre said the States should first file proper affidavits on the procedure followed in the verification of forest rights claims before any such eviction.

Also Read: US, France and UK move UN Sec Council for terrorist tag to JeM chief Masood Azhar

“The eviction of the tribals may be withheld… the eviction of tribals, without such information, would cause serious prejudice to them who have been residing in forests for generations… Many are poor and illiterate,” Mehta submitted.

To this, initially, Justice Mishra asked whether the Centre was in a “slumber for the past three years”. Justice Mishra observed that the February 13 order was only a follow-up of the court’s order on January 29, 2016, which had also directed the eviction of encroachers into forest lands.

The court asked why there were no mechanism in place in the States or in the Centre to review the rejection orders.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, for petitioner NGO Wildlife First, countered that lakhs of genuine claims were honoured under the FRA. He showed the MoTA’s data up to November 2018 that 42,24,951 claims from individuals and communities were received till November 30 last year. Of this, 18,94,225 titles were distributed while 19,39,231 claims were rejected. The ministry data, collated from inputs supplied by the States, show that titles were distributed to 44.83% of the number of claims received.

To this, Justice Mishra said “are they (rejected claimants) really tribals or normal people encroaching on forest lands?”

Justice Sinha said the Rules under the 2006 Act comprehensively cover every stage of the process of verification of claims and the provisions were self-explanatory.

“This is a human problem more than a legal problem,” Mehta responded.

“Encroaching forest lands is a serious problem,” Justice Shah said.

“But forests and tribals are to co-exist,” the Solicitor-General responded.

Also Read: Terrorists of Jaish-e-Mohammed used to take four routes to enter Jammu and Kashmir

The Centre argued that the 2006 Act is a beneficial legislation which should be liberally construed in favour of the poor.

Arguing for Wildlife First, Shyam Divan told the Court that bona fide forest dwellers will not be affected by the Court’s order. He submitted, “The people who have been granted pattas by the authorities will not be affected by the Court’s order at all.”

Mehta at this juncture termed this a “human problem” and went on to claim that forest conservation and protection of rights of forest dwellers have always coexisted, the world over. Continuing his submissions, Mehta argued that the Forest Rights Act only deals with the process of assessment of claims and does not touch upon the point of eviction saying that the “limited scope of the Act is to recognize the rights or not.”

On the point of assessment of claims, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves told the Court that most of the claims under the Act have been rejected by the authorities to which Justice Mishra observed that lack of proper documentation might make it difficult for the Tribals to prove their right over the land.

After hearing the submissions from parties, the Court stayed the implementation of its previous order.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]