Does the push for ease of doing business justify dilution of statutory consultation mechanisms like Gram Sabha consent? Discuss with reference to the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 seeks to undo the "historical injustice" done to forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers, with the Gram Sabha as the foundational authority for recognising rights [1]. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs' recent position that the Act carries no consent requirement for forest diversion [3] revives the growth-versus-rights debate.

The case made for streamlining

• Consent has been described in inter-ministerial communication as a "bottleneck" delaying power and mining projects [3].
• The Forest (Conservation) Amendment Act, 2023 already exempted categories such as strategic projects within 100 km of borders, zoos and ecotourism from prior central approval, signalling a clearance-simplification drive [2].
• Incomplete claim settlement and weak village-level capacity do cause avoidable procedural delay [1].

Why dilution is not justified

• Statutory: FRA bars modification of forest rights or resettlement without the Gram Sabha's written consent; the Gram Sabha also verifies and consolidates claims [1].
• Judicial: in the Niyamgiri (Orissa Mining Corporation v. MoEF, 2013) case, the Supreme Court held that Gram Sabhas must decide on community and religious claims before bauxite mining was cleared [4].
• Institutional: as the nodal ministry for FRA, MoTA disclaiming purview creates an accountability vacuum between rights protection and sectoral clearance [3].
• Economic: consent-free clearances invite litigation and agitation, making projects costlier than genuine consultation.

Way forward

• Time-bound Gram Sabha proceedings with reasons recorded, and FRA-compliance tracking within forest clearance portals [2].
• Settle pending claims before diversion; build Gram Sabha capacity, and adopt a joint MoTA–Environment–Power protocol with benefit-sharing [1].

Ease of doing business and free, informed consent are complements, not rivals: procedural certainty for investors grows from settled rights, not suspended ones. Reform should therefore target delay, not consent, keeping faith with the Fifth Schedule's protective spirit and the FRA's promise of justice to forest dwellers.