Gram Sabha consent under the LARR Act, 2013 and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 has often been reduced to a formality. Critically examine with reference to recent river-linking projects.

Section 41(3) of the LARR Act, 2013 says land in Scheduled Areas can be acquired only with the Gram Sabha's prior consent [2]. The FRA, 2006 makes the Gram Sabha the body that starts the process of recognising forest rights [3]. Yet a Parliamentary Standing Committee (December 2025) found that this consent is "often obtained as a mere formality" [1]. The Ken-Betwa Link Project (KBLP) shows this gap clearly.

Safeguards on paper

• Consent, not consultation: Consent is needed even for urgent acquisitions. Sections 41–42 add a development plan for displaced SC/ST families and keep their reservation benefits after resettlement [2].
• Rights before removal: Forest rights must be settled through the Gram Sabha first [3].
• Government's KBLP record: District Collectors say they obtained free, prior and informed consent before forest clearance [4]. About 96% of awarded compensation has been paid [5].

How consent becomes a formality

• Narrow scope: Outside Scheduled Areas, the Gram Sabha is only informed [2]. Villages hit by the same dam get unequal protection.
• Conflict of interest: The Collector who pushes the acquisition also records the consent. No independent body checks the vote.
• Unsettled rights: Dalit "other traditional forest dwellers" must prove 75 years of dependence on the forest [3]. Community Forest Resource rights are left out of compensation [1].
• Decisions fixed in advance: Over 4,100 ha of Panna Tiger Reserve's core and several villages fall in the submergence zone [6]. Consent is sought only after the project design is final.
• Pressure on dissent: Criminal cases against people who object make "free" consent doubtful.
• Precedent: KBLP is the first link under the interlinking programme [7], so its methods will be copied.

Counter-view

• Bundelkhand's water shortage is real, and the Centre bears ₹39,317 crore of the ₹44,605 crore cost [5]. Consent cannot mean a permanent veto.
• But affected families are mainly asking for fair rehabilitation, not for the dam to be cancelled. Respecting consent raises the cost; it does not stop the project.

Way forward

• Make consent mandatory for all acquisitions and count Community Forest Resource titles in compensation, as the Committee recommended [1].
• Use independent observers and publish Gram Sabha minutes.
• Settle FRA claims before any land is acquired.

The law's design is sound, but weak implementation turns consent into a formality. Real participation, with consent extended beyond Scheduled Areas, would let river-linking deliver water security while upholding the Fifth Schedule's spirit and SDG 16. Development would then be shared, not imposed.