CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF INDIAN FOREST LAWS

India is home to the largest indigenous population in the world. According to Census 2001, the adivasi
population constitutes 8% of total population, or 84.15 million people. State of Forest Report 2009,
published by the Forest Survey of India, puts Indias recorded forest area at 78.37 million hectares in
2007 (23.84% of the countrys geographic area). There has been a net increase (1) in forest and tree cover
between the previous assessment and this assessment, an increase that measures 0.18 million hectares.
Most of this has been witnessed in hilly and tribal areas of the country. This piece of information is of
crucial importance, proving beyond any doubt that tribal and forest-dwelling communities live in
harmony with nature; their traditional practice of using forest produce and natural resources is sustainable
and also helps forest regeneration.
Forestry constitutes the second largest land use in India after agriculture, covering about 641,130 sq km,
or 22% of the total land base. These statistics are also very important, driving home the quantum of forest
dependence in our country. An estimated 200 million people depend on forests for at least part of their
livelihoods.
The preamble to the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927) states that the Act seeks to consolidate the law
relating to forests, the transit of forest produce and the duty that can be levied on timber and other forest
produce.
The Act empowers the Gram Sabha, village level institutions in areas where there are any forest rights
holders and the forest rights holders to inter alia protect the wild life, forest and biodiversity and to ensure
that their habitat is preserved from destructive practices affecting their cultural and natural heritage.
Given the failure of the governments traditional command and control approach, this provision offers an
opportunity for the communities to adopt a transparent and participatory approach to biodiversity
management.
However, these provisions will be rendered meaningless unless empowerment includes responsibilities
for conservation. Therefore, it was necessary to authorise these bodies to regulate and manage common
resources and to penalise violators of community decisions on conservation. Although the Bill included
specific provisions listing the responsibilities and duties of right-holders to conserve nature and natural
resources, and the penalties for failing to do so, the revised Bill placed the onus on the Gram Sabha to
ensure conservation without providing any recourse if it failed to do so. The Act is completely silent on
this topic as well as on the legal means of empowerment. The draft Rules have sought to redress some
of these concerns. For instance, Rule 24(1) sets out the activities that the Gram Sabha and the villagelevel institution are empowered to undertake. Under Rule 24(2), the Gram Sabha may inter alia request
the assistance of the Forest Department or other local authorities for implementing its norms and take
corrective actions where there is violation of its norms or direct the concerned authorities to proceed in
accordance with law. However, the final Rules fail to include this provision. Moreover, both the Act and
the Rules are silent as to redressal mechanisms in cases where the Gram Sabha fails to fulfil its
responsibility.