Nearly two decades after its enactment, the Forest Rights Act, 2006 still faces large pendency and rejection of claims. Analyse the institutional bottlenecks and suggest measures.

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 was meant to undo a "historical injustice" to forest dwellers. As on 31 August 2026, more than 54 lakh claims had been filed. About 11 lakh were still pending and over 18 lakh had been rejected, which is roughly one claim in three [1]. The main problem is not the law. It is the institutions that carry it out.

Institutional bottlenecks

• Gram Sabha sidelined: Section 6 makes the Gram Sabha the body that starts claims, with the SDLC and DLC only checking and approving them [2]. In practice, these higher committees often overrule Gram Sabha decisions.
• Rigid evidence demands: The Rules accept many kinds of proof, including statements of village elders [3]. Yet "lack of evidence" and the failure of OTFDs to prove three generations are among the main reasons for rejection [4]. Under Section 2(o), the test is three generations of residence, not documents for a particular plot [2].
• Opaque rejections: The National Committee on FRA had to recommend that claimants be told the reasons in writing [5]. National rejection data is still not broken down by reason [1].
• Self-review: The same SDLCs and DLCs review their own rejections. MoTA's repeated review advisories do not bind the States [4][1].
• Slow pace in a few districts: Titles grew only from 23.43 lakh (October 2023) [6] to about 25 lakh (August 2026) [1]. Pendency is concentrated in particular districts of Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Assam [1].
• Data and records gaps: Monthly Progress Reports contain errors, and recognised rights are often not entered into revenue records [1].

Measures

• Publish rejections reason by reason and district by district on the National FRA Portal. This would separate lawful rejections (land occupied after 2005, duplicate claims) from wrongful ones [1][4].
• Make the National Committee's safeguards binding: no rejection without written reasons where a claim has two forms of evidence [5].
• Set up independent review or appeal instead of committees re-checking their own decisions. The Supreme Court-directed review in Rajasthan led to new titles [4].
• Issue a MoTA circular clarifying the OTFD test, as MoTA did for Habitat Rights [1].
• Set fixed disposal targets for District Collectors, tracked through corrected Monthly Progress Reports [1].
• Fund Gram Sabha capacity through DA-JGUA, and copy Andhra Pradesh's approach of digitising records and linking title-holders to credit [1].

Pendency and rejection both come from weak Gram Sabhas, opaque district committees and advisories that States can ignore. Clear, accountable processes led by the Gram Sabha can turn the FRA into secure rights. That would serve the Fifth Schedule's protective intent and SDG 1.4's goal of secure land rights for the poor.