Shimla, Apr 15,
A controversial circular issued by the Himachal Pradesh Forest Department on April 11 has sparked a political and legal storm, drawing sharp criticism from activists, forest rights organisations, and now, veteran leftist leader Brinda Karat. The directive, issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, outlines strict conditions for implementing the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006—conditions critics say are outside the law’s scope and designed to delay its enforcement.
Take Free HimachalScape Subscription Complete this form
Choose Your Membership
In a strongly-worded letter to Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, Brinda Karat has called for the immediate withdrawal of the notification. Terming the circular “illegal” and “anti-FRA,” she accused forest officials of bureaucratic overreach and misrepresentation of legal proceedings. “The circular’s reference to WP (Civil) 109 of 2008 is misleading at best, as there are no current orders from the Supreme Court that justify these restrictive interpretations,” Karat wrote. Notably, she was part of the parliamentary committee that had examined the FRA.
Also read:Forest Rights stir on Himachal Day: Activists slam PCCF letter, call for withdrawal
The letter has added fuel to a growing protest already voiced by more than 20 environmental and social organisations, including the Himdhara Collective, Himalaya Niti Abhiyan, and Sirmaur Van Adhikar Manch, who have called the circular “unnecessary, misleading, and contrary to the spirit of the Act.” These groups allege that the Forest Department is creating hurdles in an already delayed implementation process—17 years after the FRA came into force.
The circular warns against broad interpretations of eligibility under the “Other Traditional Forest Dwellers” (OTFD) category and suggests most forest rights were already settled during the British era. It also defends its cautionary tone as essential to preserving Himachal’s fragile ecology, particularly its slow-growing coniferous forests, and raises concerns about threats posed by practices like apple orchard expansion on forest land.
However, critics argue that the Forest Department is misusing ecological concerns to impose unjustified restrictions on rightful claimants. Tribal groups have flagged the introduction of conditions like mandatory Aadhaar verification of village elders and blanket exclusions of apple orchards—none of which are mandated in the FRA or its rules. Activists argue these additions create new, unlawful barriers for marginalised forest-dependent communities, especially Scheduled Castes and non-tribal traditional dwellers.
The controversy has exposed internal contradictions within the state government. Just days before the circular was issued, Tribal Development and Revenue Minister Jagat Singh Negi had publicly reaffirmed the government’s commitment to implementing the FRA “in letter and spirit.” This clash in messaging has triggered public confusion and raised questions about coordination between departments. Many now await a clear stance from Chief Minister Sukhu to resolve the conflict between the Forest Department’s restrictive approach and the Tribal Ministry’s more progressive posture.
Meanwhile, conservation organisations have backed the Forest Department’s caution, citing the unique biodiversity of the Himalayan state. They argue that applying a uniform national framework like the FRA without state-specific checks may lead to ecological degradation.
The Himachal Pradesh case has gained national attention at a time when the implementation of the FRA is under scrutiny. According to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, over 7.45 lakh forest rights claims are still pending nationwide, and several states face legal challenges on FRA implementation in the Supreme Court. Himachal’s policy decisions, therefore, are being watched as a potential bellwether for forest rights across India’s Himalayan region.
As pressure builds on the Sukhu-led government from political leaders, grassroots organisations, and conservationists alike, the resolution of this conflict could significantly shape the future of forest governance in the state—and possibly set a precedent for others to follow.
