Sanjay Upadhyay is a Member, Technical Support Group to draft, the Scheduled Tribes and Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 as well the Rules in 2007 under the aegis of Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India.
If SC has to dig up more on rejected claims, they should do the same for Granted claims too?Selective biases are bad for judicial institutions and members like you working there.
State govts. have to take the initiative for proper implementation of FRA. For example, the tribal protests in Mumbai and the subsequent govt. initiatives for implementation of FRA are a good example. Also, in a scenario of an apathetic state govt., the claimants have to tread the path of filing claims very carefully, which should be based upon having detailed information.
Nice read.
The problem across all the human rights violations in India (at least) is lack of accountability of the State (Machinery and Individual service providers) for its doing, undoing and misdoings
This is a great update. It’s also an interesting case study for social sciences. I see in the text of this article that cultivation is the only claim of the forest dwellers to be decided . What about grazing rights by nomads or transhumants who just use the lands for pasture.
SMN
IG forests
Ministry of Climate Change
Islamabad
Respected sir,do you think that everyone whoever has applied for rights under FRA has genuine claims.Just go and ask how many have settled after this act came into force.It has been more than a decade since implementation of this act but still people are applying for new claims. Shouldn’t there be a cutoff for application date.
Truly a good analysis of the situation that can be construed from the reports and data submitted at Hon. Supreme Court’s level. There is also another half of the story that needs to be taken cognizance. of. The Hon. SC has presumed that the number of recognitions reported to them are all correctly arrived at by the Authorities under FRA. Random ground level checks reveal that there are huge number of cases that are given without them fulfilling the criteria laid down by FRA. They are prima facie illegal, examples of blatant misuse of powers by the Authorities and clearly amount to giving sanctity to inadmissible forest rights and to ineligible persons and communities under the Act who have no locus standi under the Act. The effects, to mention just some of them, are : 1) injustice towards the otherwise well defined target group of genuine Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers under FRA , 2) injustice to the total village population that depend on such forest lands for various services, and 3) injustice to all the living forms (including each one of us) that have direct or indirect dependence on forests for supply of oxygen, water, biodiversity elements etc. Genuine FDSTs and OTFDs must not be left out and must get the benefit of the Act in any case but those who have worked to misuse the Act to adversly impact the sustainability of forest resources (meant for ecoservices to every citizen of this country) must not be pardoned. No State government is ready to review such cases and even take any action on such illegalities for obvious reasons. I just hope the Hon. Supreme Court takes a strong view on this part of the story too.
If SC has to dig up more on rejected claims, they should do the same for Granted claims too?Selective biases are bad for judicial institutions and members like you working there.
State govts. have to take the initiative for proper implementation of FRA. For example, the tribal protests in Mumbai and the subsequent govt. initiatives for implementation of FRA are a good example. Also, in a scenario of an apathetic state govt., the claimants have to tread the path of filing claims very carefully, which should be based upon having detailed information.
Nice read.
The problem across all the human rights violations in India (at least) is lack of accountability of the State (Machinery and Individual service providers) for its doing, undoing and misdoings
This is a great update. It’s also an interesting case study for social sciences. I see in the text of this article that cultivation is the only claim of the forest dwellers to be decided . What about grazing rights by nomads or transhumants who just use the lands for pasture.
SMN
IG forests
Ministry of Climate Change
Islamabad
I had posted a comment which seems to have been removed!!
Respected sir,do you think that everyone whoever has applied for rights under FRA has genuine claims.Just go and ask how many have settled after this act came into force.It has been more than a decade since implementation of this act but still people are applying for new claims. Shouldn’t there be a cutoff for application date.
Truly a good analysis of the situation that can be construed from the reports and data submitted at Hon. Supreme Court’s level. There is also another half of the story that needs to be taken cognizance. of. The Hon. SC has presumed that the number of recognitions reported to them are all correctly arrived at by the Authorities under FRA. Random ground level checks reveal that there are huge number of cases that are given without them fulfilling the criteria laid down by FRA. They are prima facie illegal, examples of blatant misuse of powers by the Authorities and clearly amount to giving sanctity to inadmissible forest rights and to ineligible persons and communities under the Act who have no locus standi under the Act. The effects, to mention just some of them, are : 1) injustice towards the otherwise well defined target group of genuine Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers under FRA , 2) injustice to the total village population that depend on such forest lands for various services, and 3) injustice to all the living forms (including each one of us) that have direct or indirect dependence on forests for supply of oxygen, water, biodiversity elements etc. Genuine FDSTs and OTFDs must not be left out and must get the benefit of the Act in any case but those who have worked to misuse the Act to adversly impact the sustainability of forest resources (meant for ecoservices to every citizen of this country) must not be pardoned. No State government is ready to review such cases and even take any action on such illegalities for obvious reasons. I just hope the Hon. Supreme Court takes a strong view on this part of the story too.