Editorial: The push to dilute gram sabha consent for forest diversion
Should a dam wait for every affected village to agree, or is the consent of three in four villages enough?
Published 9 September 2026. Written by Pratidin from the reports linked at the end; every fact checked by a separate review before publishing. How we work
The Hindu's editorial "Perilous retreat" (9 September 2026) warns against two moves that weaken the say of forest communities over their land. First, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA), the nodal ministry for the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA), told the Ministry of Power in an official communication that the FRA has "no provision for obtaining consent of the Gram Sabha for Stage-II forest clearance", and that such matters do not fall within its purview. Second, Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings, examining delays in hydropower projects of the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC), called the requirement of consent from 100% of affected gram sabhas a major bottleneck and recommended exploring a 70 to 75% threshold for large hydropower projects of national importance, drawing on practice in Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.
The committee noted that under-construction NHPC projects reportedly face an average delay of 106 months for forest clearance, against 7.2 months for environmental clearance. Its example is the 520 MW Teesta-IV hydroelectric project in Sikkim, stalled because consent is pending from three gram panchayats although seven others have agreed. Diversion of forest land for non-forest use needs approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 in two stages: Stage-I (in-principle approval) and Stage-II (final clearance). The FRA text does not use the phrase "gram sabha consent for forest clearance". The consent requirement grew from executive practice: a 2009 Environment Ministry circular required that rights under the FRA be settled and gram sabhas give their consent before forest land was diverted. Section 5 of the FRA empowers gram sabhas to protect wildlife, forest, biodiversity and community forest resources.
The editorial argues that a numerical threshold would turn gram sabhas from democratic bodies into stakeholders who can be outvoted, so that a village losing its sacred groves or ancestral land could be overruled by villages only marginally affected. Critics also point to the Supreme Court's 2013 Niyamgiri judgment, which left the decision on bauxite mining in Odisha's Niyamgiri hills to the gram sabhas, and to the protections of the Fifth Schedule and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996. The Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 had already dropped the requirement of gram sabha consent before Stage-I approval, which the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes called violative of the FRA. On the other side, the committee and project developers point to years of delay in projects meant to add clean power, and MoTA says such matters fall outside its purview.
Prelims facts
- The Ministry of Tribal Affairs has told the Ministry of Power that the Forest Rights Act, 2006 has no provision for gram sabha consent for Stage-II forest clearance.
- Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings recommended exploring a 70 to 75% consent threshold among affected gram sabhas for large hydropower projects of national importance, in place of 100%.
- Forest diversion under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is approved in two stages: Stage-I (in-principle) and Stage-II (final).
- Section 5 of the FRA empowers gram sabhas to protect wildlife, forest, biodiversity and community forest resources; Section 6 makes the gram sabha the authority that starts the process of recognising forest rights.
- The Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 removed the requirement of gram sabha consent before Stage-I approval, drawing objections from the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
Quick recall
- What is the full name of the Forest Rights Act, 2006?
- The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
- Which section of the FRA makes the gram sabha the authority to start recognising forest rights?
- Section 6.
- Which section of the FRA empowers gram sabhas to protect wildlife, forest and biodiversity?
- Section 5.
- What are the two stages of forest clearance?
- Stage-I (in-principle approval) and Stage-II (final clearance).
- What consent threshold did the Committee on Public Undertakings suggest for large hydropower projects?
- 70 to 75% of affected gram sabhas, instead of all of them.
- Which project in Sikkim is the committee's example of delay?
- The 520 MW Teesta-IV hydroelectric project of NHPC.
- Which rules dropped gram sabha consent before Stage-I approval?
- The Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022.
- Which body objected that the 2022 rules violated the FRA?
- The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes.
Prelims practice question
Under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, which one of the following is the authority to initiate the process for determining the nature and extent of individual or community forest rights?
- The State Forest Department
- The Gram Sabha
- The District Level Committee
- The Ministry of Tribal Affairs
Show answer
Answer: (b) The Gram Sabha. Section 6(1) of the FRA makes the Gram Sabha the authority to initiate the process: it receives claims and passes a resolution, which is then screened by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and decided by the District Level Committee. The Forest Department and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs do not start the process; the Ministry is the nodal ministry for the Act.
Use this in UPSC Mains: previous-year questions
Recurring theme: Rights of forest dwellers and Scheduled Tribes versus land for development projects
- How to use this
The FRA's gram sabha powers show a major legal initiative for STs, and the current moves to dilute consent show how its protections can be weakened.
- Section 5 of the FRA, 2006 empowers gram sabhas to protect forest and community resources, and Section 6 makes the gram sabha the authority that starts recognition of forest rights.
- PESA, 1996 and the Fifth Schedule add protections; in the 2013 Niyamgiri judgment the Supreme Court left the decision on bauxite mining to the gram sabhas.
- MoTA now says the FRA has no provision for gram sabha consent for Stage-II clearance, and the 2022 Forest (Conservation) Rules dropped consent before Stage-I, which the NCST called violative.
- How to use this
The consent debate shows that the key tribal question is whether communities can refuse displacement, not only how they are rehabilitated afterwards.
- Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings suggested a 70 to 75% consent threshold among affected gram sabhas for large hydropower projects, citing 106-month forest clearance delays for NHPC projects.
- The Hindu's editorial argues a threshold would let a village losing sacred groves or ancestral land be outvoted by villages only marginally affected.
- Way forward: complete rights settlement before diversion, time-bound gram sabha meetings with translated documents, and better benefit-sharing and rehabilitation.
The Fifth Schedule, and PESA which builds on it, is the constitutional ground critics cite against counting consent as a percentage.
Gram sabha consent is people's participation and democratic decentralisation at work, the core objects of Panchayati Raj.
Mains practice question
The demand to replace unanimous gram sabha consent with a qualified majority for large hydropower projects pits the speed of infrastructure against the rights of forest-dwelling communities. Critically examine. (250 words)
Model answer
The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) recognised forest dwellers' rights and made the gram sabha central to decisions over forests. A parliamentary committee's proposal to accept 70 to 75% consent of affected gram sabhas for large hydropower projects, and the Tribal Affairs Ministry's view that the FRA does not require consent for Stage-II clearance, have reopened the question.
The case for a qualified majority
- Under-construction NHPC projects reportedly wait 106 months on average for forest clearance, against 7.2 months for environmental clearance.
- The 520 MW Teesta-IV project in Sikkim is stalled by three gram panchayats although seven have consented.
- Hydropower supports the clean-energy transition; the committee cited practice in Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.
The case against
- Section 5 of the FRA empowers gram sabhas to protect forests and community forest resources; consent gives that power meaning.
- A village losing its sacred groves could be outvoted by villages that are only marginally affected.
- The Fifth Schedule, PESA 1996 and the 2013 Niyamgiri judgment treat the gram sabha as the voice of the community, not a vote to be counted.
- The Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 already moved consent out of the Stage-I stage, which the NCST called violative of the FRA.
Way forward
- Time-bound, well-informed gram sabha meetings with translated project documents.
- Complete rights settlement before diversion, with MoTA monitoring States rather than stepping back.
- Better benefit-sharing and rehabilitation so that consent is sought, not engineered.
Faster clearances are best achieved by making consent processes efficient, not by making consent optional.
The basics
Why this matters
India's forests are also homes for Scheduled Tribes and other forest dwellers. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 set out to correct this, and it made the gram sabha, the assembly of all adult voters of a village, the centre of decisions over forests. The current debate is about how much that voice should count when a dam or a mine needs forest land.
Where consent comes from
The FRA does not use the word "consent" for forest clearance. The requirement came through rules and rulings: the FRA gave gram sabhas power over forest rights, and a 2009 circular of the Environment Ministry then said forest land could not be diverted until those rights were settled and the gram sabha agreed. The Supreme Court's Niyamgiri judgment, 2013 showed the principle in action.
- 1980Forest (Conservation) Act requires Central approval to divert forest land
- 1996PESA Act empowers gram sabhas in Fifth Schedule areas
- 2006Forest Rights Act makes gram sabhas the starting point of rights recognition
- 2009Circular links diversion to rights settlement and gram sabha consent
- 2013Niyamgiri judgment leaves a mining decision to gram sabhas
- 2022Forest (Conservation) Rules drop consent before Stage-I approval
- 2026Parliamentary committee suggests a 70 to 75% threshold
How a project gets forest land
A project developer cannot clear forest on its own. The proposal moves through the Two-stage forest clearance process, and in Scheduled Areas the PESA Act, 1996 adds another layer of community say.
- 1ProposalThe user agency applies to divert a specified area of forest land
- 2Stage-IIn-principle approval with conditions such as compensatory afforestation
- 3Rights and consentForest rights under the FRA are settled and the gram sabha's view is recorded
- 4Stage-IIFinal clearance once the conditions are met
- 5State orderThe State issues the diversion order
The numbers behind the push
The committee's case rests on delay in projects of the National Hydroelectric Power Corporation (NHPC).
Two ways to count consent
The choice is between a community with a veto over its land and one stakeholder whose votes are added up.
- Each directly affected village can say no
- Protects the village that loses the most
- Can stall a project for years, as at Teesta-IV
- Faster decisions on projects of national importance
- Mirrors practice cited from Brazil, Australia and New Zealand
- A heavily affected village can be outvoted
Go deeper
In one line: The Tribal Affairs Ministry says the Forest Rights Act does not require gram sabha consent for final forest clearance, and a parliamentary committee wants large hydropower projects to need only 70 to 75% of affected gram sabhas; The Hindu's editorial calls this a perilous retreat.
Why it matters for UPSC
The story joins GS2 (protection of vulnerable sections, Fifth Schedule, PESA, local self-government) with GS3 (environmental clearance, forest conservation and energy). It is a ready Mains case on development versus rights, and Prelims likes the sections of the FRA and the stages of forest clearance.
The core idea
The Forest Rights Act, 2006 recognised the rights of forest dwellers and made the gram sabha the authority to start that process. Forest land for a dam or mine is diverted through Two-stage forest clearance under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Consent of the gram sabha entered this process through a 2009 circular, was upheld in spirit in the Niyamgiri judgment, 2013, and is backed in Scheduled Areas by the PESA Act, 1996. The new proposals would either remove consent from the final stage or count it as a percentage.
Numbers and dates to remember
- 70 to 75%: consent threshold suggested for large hydropower projects of national importance.
- 106 months: average forest clearance time for under-construction NHPC projects, against 7.2 months for environmental clearance.
- 520 MW: Teesta-IV project in Sikkim, pending consent from three gram panchayats.
- 1980, 1996, 2006, 2022: Forest (Conservation) Act, PESA, FRA, Forest (Conservation) Rules.
Where to go next
- Forest Rights Act, 2006: the law that gave forest dwellers rights and gram sabhas power.
- Two-stage forest clearance: how forest land is diverted for projects.
- Niyamgiri judgment, 2013: when gram sabhas decided the fate of a mine.
- PESA Act, 1996: self-rule for gram sabhas in Scheduled Areas.
Go deeper: consent as a right or as a hurdle
The argument for change rests on delay and national need. The Committee on Public Undertakings found that forest clearance for NHPC's under-construction projects takes about 106 months on average. Hydropower is firm, renewable power that India needs for its energy transition, and a few villages holding out can freeze an investment worth thousands of crores. The committee drew on practice in Brazil, Australia and New Zealand.
The argument against rests on law and history. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 was passed to undo what its preamble calls a historical injustice. Its Section 5 empowers gram sabhas to protect forests and community resources, and Section 6 makes them the starting point of rights recognition. The Niyamgiri judgment, 2013 treated the gram sabha's decision as the community's voice on its religious and cultural rights. In Scheduled Areas, the PESA Act, 1996 requires gram sabhas to be consulted on land acquisition. Counting consent as a percentage can let villages on the edge of a project outvote the one that will be submerged.
There is also an institutional question. The Tribal Affairs Ministry says such matters are outside its purview. Critics reply that a nodal ministry exists to guard the law, and note the 2022 rules already moved consent out of Two-stage forest clearance at Stage-I. A middle path would keep consent but make it time-bound: fixed timelines, documents in local languages, independent facilitation and clear benefit-sharing, so that delay cannot be manufactured by either side.
Forest Rights Act, 2006
The law that gave forest dwellers rights and gram sabhas power.
In one line: The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 recognises the rights of forest-dwelling communities over land and resources they have long depended on.
What it does
The FRA recognises individual rights (such as land under cultivation) and community rights (such as minor forest produce, grazing and water). It also gives communities the right to protect, regenerate and manage community forest resources they have traditionally conserved. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal ministry, while States implement the Act on the ground. The Act came into force at the end of 2007 and its rules from 1 January 2008.
The gram sabha's role
Section 6 makes the gram sabha the authority to start the process of recognising rights. Claims then pass to a Sub-Divisional Level Committee and a District Level Committee. Section 5 empowers gram sabhas and right holders to protect wildlife, forest and biodiversity. This is why the FRA is at the heart of the current consent debate.
Where to go next
Forest Rights Act, 2006: every story that connects to it (3)
Two-stage forest clearance
How forest land is diverted for projects.
In one line: Forest land can be used for a non-forest purpose such as a dam or mine only after Central approval under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, given in two stages.
The two stages
Stage-I is in-principle approval: the proposal is examined and conditions are attached, such as compensatory afforestation. Stage-II is the final clearance, given after the conditions are met. Only then does the State government issue the order diverting the land.
Where consent fits
From 2009, the Environment Ministry required that forest rights be settled and gram sabhas give their consent before diversion. The Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2022 set up an Advisory Committee, regional empowered committees and State screening committees, and dropped the requirement of gram sabha consent before Stage-I. The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes objected. The Tribal Affairs Ministry now says the FRA has no provision for consent before Stage-II either.
Where to go next
Niyamgiri judgment, 2013
When gram sabhas decided the fate of a mine.
In one line: In 2013 the Supreme Court, in the Orissa Mining Corporation case, left it to the gram sabhas of the Niyamgiri hills in Odisha to decide whether bauxite mining would affect their religious, cultural and forest rights.
What happened
A bauxite mining project in the Niyamgiri hills, sacred to the Dongria Kondh, needed forest land. The Supreme Court held that the gram sabhas must decide whether the project affected the rights of the forest dwellers under the FRA. The gram sabhas that were consulted rejected the project, and it did not go ahead.
Why it is cited now
Niyamgiri is the leading example of the gram sabha acting as the voice of the community, not as one stakeholder among many. Critics of a 70 to 75% threshold say it would reverse the spirit of this judgment, since the most affected villages could be outvoted.
Where to go next
Niyamgiri judgment, 2013: every story that connects to it (3)
PESA Act, 1996
Self-rule for gram sabhas in Scheduled Areas.
In one line: The Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 extends Part IX of the Constitution on panchayats to the Fifth Schedule areas, with special powers for gram sabhas.
What it does
Part IX, added by the 73rd Amendment, did not apply automatically to Scheduled Areas. PESA extended it with changes that respect tribal customs. Gram sabhas are to be consulted before land is acquired for development projects, and they have powers over minor forest produce, minor minerals and local markets. Ten States have Fifth Schedule areas.
Why it matters here
The Fifth Schedule and PESA treat the gram sabha as the basic unit of self-government in tribal areas. The editorial and its supporters argue that turning consent into a percentage sits uneasily with this constitutional design.
Where to go next
Take the 9 September 2026 quiz: 30 Prelims-style questions with answers