The Forest Rights Act, 2006 recognises gram sabhas as democratic institutions, not mere stakeholders. Critically examine recent proposals to dilute gram sabha consent requirements for forest land diversion.

The FRA, 2006 makes the gram sabha the authority to initiate determination of forest rights, and bars modification of those rights or resettlement without its written consent [1]. Proposals to replace this with a 70–75% threshold therefore alter institutional status, not merely procedure.

Gram sabha as a democratic institution

• The gram sabha receives, verifies and consolidates claims and forwards resolutions to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee — a decision-making, not consultative, role [2].
• Section 3(2) requires its recommendation before forest land is diverted for listed development facilities [2].
• PESA, 1996 independently makes the gram sabha competent to safeguard community resources and customary law in Scheduled Areas [5].
• In Niyamgiri (Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF, 2013), the Supreme Court referred the question of the Dongria Kondh's rights to the affected gram sabhas themselves [3].

The case for a relaxed threshold

• The Committee on Public Undertakings, examining NHPC, found forest clearance the principal bottleneck in hydropower, with projects such as Teesta-IV stalled by pending consent from a small minority of panchayats [4].
• Indian land acquisition law already uses consent percentages, suggesting a majoritarian benchmark is not alien to the statute book.

Why the dilution is problematic

• It converts a right into a headcount: the worst-affected village, facing submergence, can be outvoted by peripheral villages bearing little cost.
• FRA consent attaches to identified rights-holders; percentage rules sever it from the rights they protect [1].
• Altering community classification could reshape gram sabha composition to manufacture the required majority.
• Delay usually reflects incomplete settlement of claims by the administration, not obstruction — diluting consent treats the symptom.

Consent is the FRA's remedy for historical injustice, and clearance delays are best cured by time-bound claim settlement, capacity support to gram sabhas and transparent recording of dissent. Any recalibration must come through Parliament, not executive reinterpretation, so that development proceeds with — not around — the Fifth Schedule's promise of tribal self-governance.