Several tribal and forest rights organisations in Himachal Pradesh have written to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, raising concerns over a letter issued by the state's Principal Chief Conservator of Forests. According to these groups, the letter misinterprets the Forest Rights Act (FRA) and could negatively impact the recognition of the rights of forest dwellers.

The Forest Rights Act, 2006, grants legal rights to tribal and forest-dependent communities over the forest land they have lived on and protected for generations. However, its implementation has faced many issues, with a large number of rightful claims being wrongly denied. Organisations such as the Himdhara Collective, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, Van Adhikar Manch, and others have said that the forest department's letter—dated April 11 and sent to all deputy commissioners and forest officers—goes beyond the department’s powers. They asked the forest department to take back the letter right away and urged starting a process to rebuild trust.

Referring to the letter as "an unnecessary and unwarranted intervention", the organisations wrote to the Ministry on April 14, saying, "As per the Act, only the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) is authorised to issue clarifications or guidelines regarding its implementation. The letter issued by the Forest Department has bypassed the designated nodal agencies and their established clarifications." The forest department's letter, seen by PTI, highlighted the importance of protecting the environment and avoiding the misuse of FRA rules in the environmentally sensitive Himalayan state of Himachal Pradesh. "While the current generation may rejoice in securing 'rights' over forest lands, we are staring at a very real possibility that future generations will inherit a denuded landscape devoid of the forest systems that nurtured us for centuries," the letter read.

It cautioned against using the "Other Traditional Forest Dweller" (OTFD) category too broadly, saying it could be misused in the specific context of Himachal Pradesh. "In Himachal Pradesh... almost every person in a rural area can potentially claim to be an Other Traditional Forest Dweller (OTFD) under the FRA, but that is a total misinterpretation," the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) wrote.

"Any overreaching and misinterpretation of the definition can lead to vast destruction and conversion of Himachal Pradesh forests and can violate the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other court rulings," he said. Forest rights groups say that the law is being misunderstood. "The contents of the letter make it quite evident that the Forest Department is attempting to impose its own interpretation of the term Other Traditional Forest Dwellers, effectively bypassing the definition under Section 2(o) provided by Parliament under FRA," they wrote in their letter to the ministry.

The PCCF's directive to deny claims based on "post-encroachment commercial activities," such as apple orchards, was another point of contention. The forest department wrote, "Apple orchards now standing on encroached forest lands cannot be deemed to reflect forest-based livelihood... To label such activity as a continuation of 'bona fide forest-based livelihood' is a dangerous misreading of the law." However, activists argued that this overlooks the FRA provisions, which permit people to grow crops for their livelihood on forest land.

"Section 3(1)(a) of FRA recognises the right to forest land 'for self-cultivation for livelihood' without any condition on what should or should not be cultivated and includes cultivation for commercial purposes," they wrote. "Apple, being a tree crop, falls squarely within this definition," they said. They also raised concerns about the PCCF's demand to video-record Gram Sabha meetings and to use satellite images to verify claims. The PCCF's letter said, "All Gram Sabha meetings must be video-recorded and photographed", and that "open-source imagery and maps be used alongside revenue records to prevent false or exaggerated claims". The groups called this a legal overreach saying, "FRA does not require meetings of any of its statutory bodies... to be video-recorded and photographed."

Additionally, they charged that the forest department had misrepresented orders from the Supreme Court. In reference to W.P. (Civil) 109 of 2008, the PCCF wrote that "any violation or overreaching of powers may invite contempt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as forestland is involved." However, the groups claimed that no such order was issued by the court. Instead, they stated, "The Supreme Court in fact stayed its own earlier order of February 13, 2019, on eviction of rejected claimants when the central government and the state governments conceded that the rejection of claims has not been as per the provisions in the FRA."

According to the rights groups, the state's implementation of the FRA has already been hampered by the forest department's previous activities. "This is not the first time that the Forest Department's intervention has derailed the implementation of FRA in the state," they said, citing the 2014 directive that established "nil claim" certificates.

C R Bijoy, an expert on forest governance, said that the forest department is already legally involved in implementing the Forest Rights Act (FRA) at all levels, so there was no need for such a letter. "The Forest Department is involved at all levels of forest rights recognition under FRA -- at the village level verification by the Forest Rights Committee, the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee. The State Forest Secretary and the PCCF himself are part of the state apex body, the State Level Monitoring Committee," he said.

"When this is so, issuing such a letter grossly misrepresenting the law and Supreme Court orders indicting all these statutory bodies under FRA, including the forest bureaucracy, is amazing," Bijoy said. He said the timing of the letter raised doubts, especially since a Supreme Court case on the Forest Rights Act (FRA) is still pending. "Coming at a time when the anti-FRA case WP(c) 109 of 2008 is anticipated to come up in the Supreme Court any time now, the Himachal PCCF's letter seems to be part of a campaign by a section of the disgruntled forest bureaucracy to deliberately malign FRA, a flagship law of the country," the expert said.

He also pointed out that the department is still using old data on encroachments. "The PCCF's reference to encroachment, when what constitutes encroachment itself has undergone sea change with FRA... It is altogether another absurdity that the Environment Ministry and state governments continue to produce legally and factually untenable figures on 'encroachment' to mislead the judiciary, the recent being the National Green Tribunal," he said.