Six days ago, we wrote about the Supreme Court endangering the lives and livelihood of more than one Million adivasis, tribals and forest-dwellers.
“On February 13, the bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, and Indira Banerjee directed states to ensure the eviction of all those persons from forestland whose claims under the Forest Rights Act have been rejected. The Chief Secretaries of Andhra Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Chattisgarh, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, Telengana, Tripura, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal were told to explain before Court why the rejected claimants have not been evicted. They were directed to ensure eviction in all cases where rejection orders have been passed on or before July 24. “In case the eviction is not carried out, as aforesaid, the matter would be viewed seriously by this Court”, the bench had sternly warned the states.”, reports LiveLaw.in.
Over the past few weeks, since the ruling was passed by the Supreme Court, there have been varying responses to it with petitions and open letters and uproar from the Adivasis and activists and organizations, working on Forest Rights Act.
In a surprising yet a hopeful turn of events, the apex court has ordered a stay on the eviction operation. According to Bar and Bench, “The Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs moved the Supreme Court and sought a modification of this order, as well as a temporary stay on the implementation of the same. It was submitted by the Ministry that the Forest Rights Act is a welfare legislation and must be construed as such for the benefit of the poor and illiterate forest dwellers.”
According to LiveLaw.in, “In the application moved yesterday, the Centre sought modification of the order so as to direct the State Governments to file detailed affidavits regarding the procedure followed and details of the rejection, and to withhold eviction till then”. The Centre told the court that it is uncertain from the affidavits already filed by state governments as to whether the rejection orders were passed after due process, and whether appeal mechanisms have been properly exhausted.
The Centre said that it has been periodically monitoring the implementation of the Act by the state governments. It has noted high rate of rejections of claims, which are mostly due to wrong interpretation of the Act. There is lack of awareness about the procedure for filing claims among the Gram Sabhas. “In many cases, reasons for rejections were not communicated to the claimants, and they are not able to prefer appeals”, the Centre states in it affidavit.
The Center referred to several letters sent by it to state governments in past years expressing its concern at the high rate of rejections, and unrealistic timelines followed by Monitoring Committees under the Act. It has also noticed instances where forest authorities were trying to evict tribals without awaiting the decision of appeal.
“The Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha, and MR Shah has 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.
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.”
Senior Counsel Shyam Divan, arguing for the Petitioner organisation Wildlife First in this case, 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 recognise the rights or not.”, reports Bar and Bench.
Staying its order, the bench has granted four months to the concerned states to do the needful. The matter will now be heard in July.
Although this is a positive step in the direction of safeguarding Adivasi rights, there is no clarity on whether the two million Adivasi and Tribal families, whose forest rights cases have been pending will be evicted four months from now. The case is merely on hold at the moment and the uncertainty is not helpful to those who may face possible loss of land and livelihood.