Explained: Implementation of Forest Rights Act in Himachal Pradesh; row over letter from state’s Principal Chief Conservator of Forests’ office

What is the Forest Rights Act, 2006? How is it being implemented in Himachal Pradesh?

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, commonly known as the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, is landmark legislation that aims to recognise and vest forest rights in Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs) who have been residing in and dependent on forest land for at least three generations, but whose rights were not adequately recorded or recognized under previous forest laws.

Under the Act, post-2005 rights of eligible people on forest land are to be regularized and authenticated. Although the FRA was to be implemented nationwide with immediate effect, Himachal Pradesh has seen slow progress due to a combination of complex issues, such as unclear identification of ST populations, lack of clarity on defining OTFDs, bureaucratic hesitation, low awareness, and legal complications.

On March 20, Revenue and Tribal Affairs Minister Jagat Singh Negi announced that all eligible people earning their livelihood from forest land would be given rights to use up to 50 bighas of forest land, equivalent to 4 hectares.

The FRA is now being implemented across all 12 districts of Himachal Pradesh, including its three tribal districts—Lahaul & Spiti, Kinnaur, and the tribal areas of Chamba (Bharmaur and Pangi).

What method was adopted by Himachal Pradesh to implement the FRA?

To identify and recognise the rights on forest land, the state government devised a nine-step process.

This include Gram Sabha formation: Gram Panchayats convene meetings including all hamlets under their jurisdiction to form Gram Sabhas; formation of Forest Rights Committee (FRC): the first Gram Sabha meeting forms the FRC to receive and prepare claims; initiation of claims process: FRC begins work on Collective Forest Rights (CFR) and assists individuals seeking Individual Forest Rights (IFR); joint FRC meetings: FRCs of adjacent Gram Sabhas meet to discuss CFR boundaries; collection of claims: FRC receives IFR claim forms, collects applications, and informs claimants about inquiry procedures; verification of claims: Ground-level inquiries of claims are conducted; final Gram Sabha review: FRC presents reports to the Gram Sabha, which accepts or rejects claims; sub-divisional level committee (SDLC) review: Headed by the SDO (Civil), this six-member body verifies Gram Sabha recommendations and District Level Committee (DLC) Review: Headed by the Deputy Commissioner, it finalizes and registers approved claims.

Above all, a 10-member state-level monitoring committee (SLMC) has been formed, headed by the chief secretary, with the commissioner of the tribal department as the secretary.

Three non-government members in the committee are from the Tribal Advisory Council (TAC). The SDLC and DLC include representatives from both government and Scheduled Tribe communities, ensuring inclusivity and transparency.

What were the contents of the letter issued by PCCF Sameer Rastogi’s office?

The letter, drafted by Additional PCCF (Forest Management and Policy & Law) Pushpinder Rana, was titled ‘Divisional Level Workshop-cum-Interactive Session on FRA, ߖ Some Critical Issues & Existing Provisions’.

It aimed to guide forest officers on the cautious and lawful implementation of FRA in a hill state like Himachal Pradesh, where 37,000 sqkm of land is forest area — of which 21,000 sqkm is snow-covered or desert terrain.

The letter emphasised protecting forest wealth while ensuring genuine beneficiaries received their rights.

It listed nine advisory points, including broad application of the OTFD category is risky; accepting claims only from genuinely landless and marginalized individuals; maintain legal and procedural safeguards; acknowledging the quasi-judicial nature of FRA proceedings; use modern technology for claim verification; treating the cut-off date (December 13, 2005) as final; approach collective claims with caution; maintaining inter-departmental records in multiple locations and avoid a number-driven approach in monitoring claims.

Why did the letter draw criticism from activists and environmentalists?

The primary objection came from the letter’s first point: “Broad application of Other Traditional Forest Dweller (OTFD) category is risky in Himachal Pradesh.”

It claimed that due to widespread historical forest use for grazing, fodder collection, and fuelwood, nearly every rural resident could wrongly claim to be an OTFD.

The letter argued that most such rights had been settled during British rule and thus do not fall under the FRA’s OTFD definition.

It stated that activities like apple orchards on encroached forest land are high-profit ventures established post-deforestation and should not be mistaken for forest-based livelihoods.

The letter was advocating that the FRA’s execution in a fragile hill state like Himachal Pradesh whose total forest area is 37,000 sq km, including 21,000 sqkm is snow-covered and desert, requires utmost caution and context sensitivity to protect precious forest wealth and provide benefits to the real beneficiaries, while excluding the forest offenders/encroachers to comply with the various rulings, directions of courts including apex court.

This sparked outrage among activists. Guman Singh of Himalayan Niti Abhiyan said, “The FRA has two categories—STs and OTFDs—which include Scheduled Castes and General Castes. The letter misrepresents legal provisions and creates confusion about eligibility. The Forest Department tried to redefine ‘OTFD’ in contradiction to the law.”

He further argued that all FRA provisions apply equally to both STs and OTFDs, except that non-ST applicants must prove three generations of forest dependence before December 13, 2005. The department’s concern about large-scale eligibility under the OTFD category, he said, reflects an attempt to deny tenure security to large sections of forest-dependent populations.

What was the stand of the Forest Department? Why was the letter issued?

A senior IFS officer confirmed that the letter was withdrawn but defended its purpose as an internal advisory to caution officers during claim verification. “We stand by the spirit of the Act—to protect the rights of genuinely forest-dependent people. The challenge lies in determining forest dependence, especially for families with mixed sources of income. For example, if one family member works in government service and another uses forest land for livelihood, how do we classify them?” the officer asked.

He added that the state’s per capita income, as per the latest Economic Survey, is Rs 2.57 lakh, and that dependence on forest land has decreased as people have taken up alternative livelihoods.

He pointed out that there are about 3 lakh claimants, and with each eligible person entitled to 50 bighas (approx. 4 hectares), the total potential forest allocation could reach 12 lakh hectares (12,000 sq km)—a third of the state’s total forest area of 37,948 sq km, including 16,580 sq km of current forest cover.

What next for the implementation of FRA in Himachal Pradesh?

Going forward, the implementation of FRA in Himachal Pradesh will likely follow a contested path, with the following developments expected.

They include capacity-building of Gram Sabhas: civil society organisations may focus on training local bodies to assert their rights and document claims more effectively; dialogue between departments: there is a growing demand for inter-departmental coordination—between forest, tribal welfare, and revenue departments—to harmonise efforts; and monitoring by central authorities: the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes may step in to monitor compliance with FRA.