The Forest Rights Act
is under attack, facing at least five petitions against it in various
courts.
In a hearing on March 28, the Supreme Court directed that notice be
issued on two petitions filed by wildlife organisations — Bombay
Natural History Society and Wildlife First — attacking the
constitutionality of the Act.
Besides this, cases on the issue are pending in the Bombay High Court,
Madras High Court (two cases), Andhra Pradesh High Court and possibly
Kolkata High Court.
Interestingly, in three cases, the petitions have been filed by retired
forest officers. Besides, the Supreme Court petition has been filed on
behalf of four organisations, but signed by Dr MK Ranjit Singh,
ex-secretary (forests) of Madhya Pradesh.
The case in the Supreme Court will have the court advised by Harish
Salve, the amicus curiae in the ongoing “forest case” of TN Godavarman
Thirumalpad and Others versus Union of India and Others, and by the
members of the Central Empowered Committee created for that case.
While the Committee is India’s most powerful forest regulatory body
today, most of its members are serving forest officers, and it has
already made known its opposition to the rights of forest dwellers.
However, forest groups campaigning for tribal rights say that the spurt
in petitions against the Act is not a result of some kind of
spontaneous wave of opposition.
“Most of the High Court petitions are cut-and-paste versions of the
same document, with the same paragraphs in a different order. This is
clearly a coordinated operation,” says Campaign for Survival and
Dignity, a network of several tribal organisations and rights groups.
The Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS) petition says that the true
“injustice” to tribals was caused by the alienation of tribal land to
non-tribals.
However the Campaign for Survival and Dignity says that alienation of
tribal land “is neither comparable to, nor in any way related to, the
enormous ‘alienation’ (more accurately land-grab) of tribal lands
through forest laws.
Moreover, neither BNHS nor its conservationist co-petitioners have ever
taken up the issue of alienation of tribal land in any serious manner.
To raise it now ...is clearly a mala fide attempt to appear
‘pro-tribal’ while hitting at the fundamental rights of tribals and
other forest communities”.
However, Debi Goenka, speaking on behalf of BNHS, denied that he had
anything to do with the forest department or the government. He also
denied that the other petitions had anything to do with BNHS.
http://www.business-standard.com/common/news_article.php?leftnm=3&autono=318741
Business Standard Ltd. Copyright &
Disclaimer.
