English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

Reprieve to forest dwellers and tribals as Supreme Court stays its eviction order

Published

8 years ago

on

Tribals FRA

[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]

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

India News

LPG Aadhaar authentication mandatory for subsidy from October 1

Biometric Aadhaar authentication will be required for subsidised domestic LPG refills from October 1. Here is what changes for consumers who have and have not completed the process.

Published

6 hours ago

on

September 23, 2026

By

LPG cylinder

Biometric Aadhaar authentication will become a requirement for domestic LPG consumers seeking to book refills at the regulated retail selling price with applicable subsidy from October 1, 2026.

The government has said the measure is aimed at ensuring that subsidised LPG reaches eligible households and at preventing the diversion of subsidised domestic cylinders for commercial and industrial use.

What changes from October 1

Consumers who have already completed biometric Aadhaar authentication will not have to repeat the process. Their LPG refills will continue as before.

For consumers who have not completed the authentication, refill booking at the regulated price with subsidy will be enabled after the authentication is completed.

As of September 19, 2026, 27.43 crore active domestic LPG consumers, or 89.9 per cent of the total, had completed biometric Aadhaar authentication, according to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry.

How to complete Aadhaar authentication

Consumers who have not yet completed the process can do so through several channels.

Authentication can be completed during LPG delivery, at the distributor’s showroom or through the mobile applications of the three state-owned oil marketing companies.

Indane customers can use IndianOil ONE, Bharatgas customers can use HelloBPCL, while HP Gas customers can use HP PAY.

What if consumers do not complete authentication

The government has clarified that consumers who are unwilling or unable to complete biometric Aadhaar authentication can still receive LPG.

However, they will have to register their choice through the available digital channels of their oil marketing company, such as its consumer portal, mobile app, WhatsApp chatbot or IVRS.

Such consumers will be supplied LPG at the applicable market price without subsidy, in 5-kg or 10-kg cylinders, subject to local availability.

Why the government is introducing the requirement

According to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Ministry, linking each LPG connection to an Aadhaar-authenticated consumer is intended to prevent diversion of subsidised domestic cylinders and remove duplicate or ineligible connections.

The government has also said the measure is intended to make subsidy delivery more targeted and transparent.

Authentication deadline and progress

Consumers were initially asked to complete biometric Aadhaar authentication by June 30, 2026. The deadline was subsequently extended several times, with September 14 being the final extended deadline mentioned by the ministry.

The nationwide authentication drive has been underway since October 2023. The government said more than 12 crore SMS and WhatsApp messages had been sent as part of the outreach campaign.

The government has urged consumers who have not yet completed the process to do so before October 1.

LPG Aadhaar authentication becomes mandatory for subsidised domestic LPG refills from October 1. Consumers who have already completed biometric authentication need not do it again. Those who haven’t can still get LPG, but at the applicable market price without subsidy.

Continue Reading

India News

BJP hits back at opposition over EC row, says disagreement is democracy

The BJP has defended reported differences among Election Commissioners, saying internal deliberations are part of a healthy democratic process.

Published

7 hours ago

on

September 23, 2026

By

The BJP has defended the Election Commission amid a political row over reported differences among Election Commissioners concerning decisions linked to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

BJP MP Sambit Patra said discussions and exchanges of views within the poll panel should be seen as part of the democratic process rather than as evidence of institutional dysfunction.

According to the BJP’s position, disagreement during official deliberations reflects the fact that members of an institution are able to put forward their views before decisions are taken.

BJP defends EC deliberations

Patra said that if the three Election Commissioners discuss and debate issues among themselves, such exchanges should not be characterised as dictatorship. He described such deliberations as a sign of a healthy democracy.

The BJP’s response came amid reports that Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi had raised objections on multiple occasions over decisions and orders associated with the SIR exercise and electoral rolls.

The Election Commission has said that differences in views and observations are a normal part of deliberations within an institution. It has maintained that decisions, including those related to SIR, were taken unanimously.

Row centres on SIR process

The controversy comes against the backdrop of the ongoing political debate over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Opposition parties have raised concerns over the reported differences within the poll panel, while the BJP has sought to counter those arguments by pointing to the role of discussion and deliberation in institutional decision-making.

Patra also said the BJP’s understanding of the matter was based on media reports rather than access to the Election Commission’s internal documents. He said the documents, as reported, indicated that the SIR process was finalised after democratic deliberations and consensus.

What the Election Commission has said

The Election Commission has rejected the suggestion that the reported objections indicate a breakdown in its functioning.

It has maintained that differing opinions during deliberations are part of normal institutional functioning and that the decisions eventually taken by the commission were unanimous.

Continue Reading

India News

IIT Bombay Professor Suryanarayana Doolla sent on leave amid student suicide row

IIT Bombay professor Suryanarayana Doolla has been sent on leave amid the ongoing student protests following Sahil Wakode’s death.

Published

17 hours ago

on

September 23, 2026

By

IIT Bombay professor Suryanarayana Doolla has been sent on leave amid the ongoing controversy following the death of 20-year-old student Sahil Wakode, with protests on the campus seeking action against the professor.

Doolla, a faculty member in IIT Bombay’s Department of Energy Science and Engineering, had been involved in the examination incident concerning Wakode. The student was allegedly found using a mobile phone during a mid-semester examination and had uploaded the question paper to an AI platform to seek answers, according to the institute.

Why Suryanarayana Doolla is at the centre of the controversy

Doolla was the course instructor and examination invigilator during the examination and was involved in reporting the alleged examination malpractice to the institute’s authorities.

IIT Bombay has said Wakode was subsequently counselled by the instructor and the Head of Department and was assured that the examination incident would not adversely affect his academic career. The institute has also maintained that no disciplinary action had been initiated against the student before his death.

Wakode’s family, however, alleged harassment and caste-based discrimination. Mumbai Police registered a case based on the family’s complaint, with Doolla among those named. The allegations remain subject to investigation.

Student protests at IIT Bombay

Following Wakode’s death, students began protesting on the IIT Bombay campus and demanded action against Doolla.

IIT Bombay Director Professor Shireesh Kedare met the protesting students on September 20 and signed an 18-point charter of demands. The demands included action against Doolla.

Doolla was subsequently removed from the post of Dean Students Welfare amid the protests. The latest action comes as the controversy surrounding Wakode’s death and the allegations against the professor continue to be investigated.

Faculty members back Doolla

While students have demanded action against Doolla, IIT Bombay’s Faculty Forum has backed the professor, saying he was performing his duties as an invigilator and had followed the institute’s prescribed procedure after detecting the alleged examination malpractice.

The controversy involves the examination incident, allegations made by Wakode’s family and the police investigation into his death. The allegations against Doolla have not been established as facts and remain part of the ongoing investigation.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com