Discuss the role of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in giving forest-dwelling tribal communities a say in large infrastructure projects, with reference to recent litigation.

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 was passed to correct a "historical injustice" to forest dwellers [1]. It makes the Gram Sabha (village assembly), not the State alone, a gatekeeper of forest land. Recent litigation shows that this say is real but fragile.

How the FRA gives tribes a say

• Recognises rights: individual, community and habitat rights of primitive tribal groups (Section 3) [1].
• Protects against eviction: no eviction until recognition and verification of rights is complete (Section 4(5)) [1].
• Empowers the Gram Sabha to protect forests, wildlife and its habitat (Section 5). Relocation requires its free, informed consent in writing [1].
• Links to forest clearance: under the Forest Conservation Rules, 2022, FRA rights must be settled before forest land is handed over to a project [3].

Recent litigation

• Niyamgiri (2013): the Supreme Court held that the Gram Sabha decides whether bauxite mining affects community, cultural and religious rights, including worship of Niyam Raja [2].
• Great Nicobar (2026): a former Environment Secretary has challenged the ₹72,000+ crore project in the Calcutta High Court under the FRA, although the NGT upheld its Environmental Clearance (EC) and rejected a review in April 2023 [4].
• On 5 October 2026 the Supreme Court refused to stay the High Court case. It said "preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right" [4]. So FRA compliance is a separate question from the EC.
• The Centre's position: the Ministry of Tribal Affairs gave a no-objection certificate (NOC) with "due adherence" to the FRA. It says the Shompen face no displacement and that a larger area is being re-notified as tribal reserve [5].

Limits on this say

• Consent comes late: the 2022 Rules let rights be settled after final approval, so consent becomes an after-the-fact formality [3].
• Isolated PVTGs (Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups) such as the Shompen cannot take part in Gram Sabha processes, so officials speak for them.
• "Strategic importance" arguments push courts to defer to the government [4].

The FRA has made tribes stakeholders rather than just people affected by projects, and courts are now enforcing that role. The way forward is Gram Sabha consent before clearance, with full project information shared in local languages; oversight by the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) under Article 338A; and quick court rulings. This would protect Articles 21 and 29(1) and SDG 15 without stopping development.