Evaluate how effectively the Forest Rights Act, 2006 protects the consent rights of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups in large development projects.

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 gives PVTGs habitat rights over their customary territories and makes the gram sabha the authority on forest rights [4][5]. The challenge to the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar project, which affects the Shompen, now before the Calcutta High Court, shows that these protections are strong on paper but weak in practice [1].

Strengths: what the FRA provides

• Habitat rights under Section 3(1)(e): These cover the social, spiritual and livelihood uses of land, not just housing. MoTA clarified this in 2015 [5].
• Protection from eviction: Under Section 4(5), no forest dweller can be removed until the recognition process is complete [4].
• Judicial backing: In Niyamgiri (2013), the Supreme Court let the Dongria Kondh (a PVTG) gram sabhas decide whether bauxite mining would harm their rights. All twelve gram sabhas rejected it [6].

Weaknesses: gaps in practice

• A ministry certificate in place of consent: The Great Nicobar project relies on a Ministry of Tribal Affairs NOC, not on the recorded consent of gram sabhas [2].
• Consultation treated as consent: Officials say they consulted the Anthropological Survey and followed the Shompen Policy, 2015 [2]. That is expert advice, not the informed agreement of a small, isolated PVTG. Reports also say the local Tribal Council withdrew its 2022 no-objection because it had been rushed into signing.
• Scale of loss: Up to 7.11 lakh trees may be felled in phases up to 2047 [2]. The government justifies this on strategic grounds [3].
• Barriers to going to court: The Centre has filed an SLP arguing that the petitioner has no locus standi [1]. PVTGs cannot realistically go to court themselves, so a narrow standing rule would leave no one to speak for them.
• Few habitat rights recognised: Only a few PVTGs have had their habitat rights formally recognised, so their claims often have no legal record behind them.

Verdict The FRA protects PVTG consent well in law but only partly in practice. Consent depends on how the administration runs the process, and courts have to step in case by case.

Consent can be made real by:

• giving project information in local languages first and then holding a fresh gram sabha vote;
• having the NCST (Article 338A) check compliance;
• having courts decide these cases quickly on their merits.

Together these would turn the Niyamgiri principle into routine practice. That would serve Article 46 and SDG 16 and make development genuinely inclusive.