Forest Rights of Tribals Cannot Be “Short-Circuited” by Old Orders: Allahabad High Court

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court has held that authorities cannot reject claims of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes by mechanically relying on earlier judicial orders while ignoring the mandate and purpose of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, emphasising that the law was enacted to correct historical injustice and secure livelihood rights of forest communities.

A Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary quashed the order dated March 15, 2021 passed by the District Level Committee, holding that it failed to consider the statutory scheme of the 2006 Act and instead relied on a Supreme Court interim order passed prior to the enactment of the law.

The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the petitioners’ claims afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned order. It further ordered that, in the meantime, the petitioners shall continue to enjoy their existing forest rights under the Act.

The writ petition was filed by members of the Tharu community residing in Lakhimpur Kheri, who challenged the rejection of their claim for community forest rights.

Represented by Advocates Nandini Verma, Desh Deepak Singh, and Rajat Srivastava, the petitioners contended that they are forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes entitled to rights under the 2006 Act, including access to minor forest produce essential for livelihood.

It was argued that the impugned order failed to appreciate that the 2006 Act contains a non-obstante clause and overrides conflicting provisions of other laws as well as earlier judicial orders to the extent necessary for recognition of forest rights.

The petitioners further relied on government clarifications stating that forest rights recognised under the Act are to be implemented notwithstanding other legal requirements, including those under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

On the other hand, the respondents, represented by the learned ASGI and the Chief Standing Counsel, supported the impugned order and argued that it had been passed in accordance with existing legal principles and binding judicial precedent.

The High Court, however, found that the District Level Committee had failed to discharge its statutory duty by not examining the petitioners’ claims in light of the object and provisions of the 2006 Act.

The Court noted that the legislation was enacted to recognise long-standing rights of forest dwellers that had remained unrecorded and to ensure their livelihood and food security.

The Bench examined Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and observed that these provisions recognise and vest forest rights in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, including rights to collect, use, and dispose of minor forest produce.

It clarified that the Act does not create new rights but formalises existing rights rooted in traditional occupation and use.

The Court further held that reliance on a pre-2006 interim order of the Supreme Court, without examining its applicability in light of the subsequent statutory framework, was legally untenable.

It observed that the authority had effectively bypassed the legislative intent by failing to assess the claims independently under the Act.

Emphasising that the true nature of a law must be understood from its object and purpose, the Court concluded that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and failed to take into account relevant statutory provisions.

It held that such an approach defeats the very objective of the Act, which seeks to remedy historical injustice and protect the rights of vulnerable communities.

Taking note of the impact on the livelihood of the petitioners, the Court directed that their existing rights under the Act shall continue until a fresh decision is taken by the competent authority.

Case Title: Udasa & 106 Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf & Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary

Date of Judgment: 09.04.2026