1.2 Prior to the enactment of the FRA, certain amendments were made to the WLPA, relating to the creation of inviolate areas for tiger conservation (Critical Tiger Habitat - “CTH"). While the relevant provisions of the FRA and the WLPA are similar, they are not the same, and as such, while this note may touch upon CTHs under the WLPA, it is primarily aimed at elucidating the process and principles governing the identification, determination, and notification of CWHs, and the resettlement of forest right bearers (“FRBs") from CWHs.
1.3 The MoEF, as a nodal ministry entrusted with implementation of the FRA and the ministry in charge of the identification and notification of CWHs, issued guidelines for the notification of CWHs in 2007 (the “2007 Guidelines"). Consequent to procedural delays, and criticism of the 2007 Guidelines themselves, the MoEF issued Revised Guidelines in 2011 (the “Revised Guidelines"). Along with criticism of the MoEF's and State Forest Department's role in the implementation of the FRA by the Report of the National Committee on Forest Rights Act (the “Saxena Committee Report"),1 the Revised Guidelines have also come in for some flak.2 The MoEF is now seeking to hear various stakeholders and experts with the hope of arriving at a set of guidelines that are palatable to all concerned.
1.4 This note aims to set out the authors' views on the procedure and principles governing the identification, determination, and notification of CWHs, and the resettlement of FRBs from CWHs. While the authors' understanding of the subject is strongly based on the actual provisions of the FRA, the attempt has been to accommodate criticism leveled at the guidelines, especially where such criticism is just and fair, and arrive at solutions that are legally and practically tenable. "For the complete report authored by Belinda Wright and Avinash Basker click here."
