Gram sabha consent should stay unanimous

The issue

Parliament's Committee on Public Undertakings, in a report on NHPC Ltd, was told that the need for full gram sabha consent before forest land is diverted had become a bottleneck for hydro projects, including the 2,000 MW Subansiri Lower project. It asked that a super-majority of 70% to 75% be considered in place of full consent. On 31 August the Ministry of Tribal Affairs told the Ministry of Power, in an office memorandum, that the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and its rules contain no provision for gram sabha consent for Stage-II forest clearance, and that the matter was outside its purview.

The law is layered. The FRA, 2006 recognises individual and community rights over forest land and makes the gram sabha the body that starts the process and protects community resources. The Environment Ministry's order of 3 August 2009 asked for gram sabha resolutions, confirming that rights were settled and that the village consented, before diversion. In the Niyamgiri case (2013), the Supreme Court left it to the gram sabhas to decide whether mining affected their rights, and all twelve rejected the project. PESA, 1996 and the land acquisition law of 2013 also give gram sabhas in Scheduled Areas a say in land decisions.

Our view

Consent should stay with every affected gram sabha. A majority rule across villages sounds reasonable until one looks at who is outvoted. The village that will be submerged by a reservoir has the most to lose, and it can be outnumbered by villages that lose a road or a grazing patch. A rule built that way hands the decision to those least affected.

The delays are real, but consent is rarely their only cause. Rights claims left unsettled for years, poor rehabilitation packages and meetings called at short notice are what make villages refuse. Settling rights on time, fixing compensation before the vote and holding properly recorded gram sabha meetings would speed projects without taking away the veto.

We also find the Tribal Affairs Ministry's position hard to accept. Section 11 of the FRA names it the nodal agency for the Act. If the consent rule needs changing, it should be changed openly, by amending the law or the rules after consulting tribal communities. An office memorandum between two ministries is the wrong place to settle it.

The other side

• The FRA itself does not use the word consent for forest diversion; the requirement came through an executive order.
• India needs hydro and pumped storage power to balance solar and wind, and projects stuck for years cost the public money.
• A unanimity rule can let a small group, or local elites who control a meeting, block a project that serves millions downstream.

Using it in Mains

This fits GS Paper 2 (welfare of Scheduled Tribes, local self-government) and GS Paper 3 (infrastructure, land acquisition). For BPSC, use it in Indian polity and social issues.

Q. Should the consent of all affected gram sabhas remain a condition for diverting forest land? Discuss with reference to the Forest Rights Act and recent proposals for majority consent.

• FRA, PESA and the 2013 land law as three layers of gram sabha power.
• Niyamgiri (2013) as the leading precedent.
• Majority rule and the most affected village.
• Faster rights settlement as the alternative to diluting consent.
• Keywords: free, prior and informed consent, historical injustice, Fifth Schedule, nodal agency.

Sources: India Code, Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006