Second Regional Review Conference on Implementation of the Forest Rights Act Held in Kolkata

1. At a Glance

• The Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) held the Second Regional Review Conference on implementing the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) in Kolkata on 9 October 2026. It covered eight Eastern and Central States [1].
• The conference is part of a region-wise review series. The first was held in Bengaluru on 10 September 2026 for the Southern States [1].
• Why it matters: the FRA has a large backlog. About 11 lakh claims are pending and over 18 lakh have been rejected, out of more than 54 lakh received. That makes FRA delivery a live GS-II and GS-III issue: tribal rights, federal implementation and forest governance [1].
• The focus has moved from giving out titles to what happens after a title is granted. That means community forest resource (CFR) management plans, PVTG habitat rights, entering rights into land records, digitisation, and linking title-holders to credit and livelihood schemes [1].

2. Why in the News

• 9 Oct 2026: MoTA held the Second Regional Review Conference in Kolkata [1].
• Participating States (8): West Bengal, Assam, Tripura, Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh [1].
• Andhra Pradesh was a special invitee, asked to share best practices on [1]:
• digitising FRA records
• entering FRA titles into government records
• linking livelihood schemes to title-holders

• credit for right-holders

• District officials (Collectors, Sub-Collectors, ITDP/ITDA Project Officers) from districts with large pendency also attended [1].

• Key figures given in the Keynote by the Joint Secretary, MoTA (as on 31 Aug 2026) [1]:
• 54 lakh+ claims received nationally
• ~25 lakh titles distributed
• ~11 lakh claims pending at various stages
• 18 lakh+ claims rejected
• High pendency is concentrated in particular districts of Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Assam

3. Background & Evolution

• Enabling law: The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, published as Act No. 2 of 2007 on India Code [6].
• Rules: The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007 [7].
• Milestones (chronological):
• 2006–07: The Act and Rules lay down the claim process. The Gram Sabha starts it; claims then go to the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC) and the District Level Committee (DLC) [6][9].
• Joint Communication by MoEFCC and MoTA "for more effective implementation of the FRA" [2].
• Up to 31 Oct 2023: 23.43 lakh land titles covering over 1.8 crore acres had been distributed [8].
• 2024: Dharti Aaba Janjatiya Gram Utkarsh Abhiyan (DA-JGUA), also called the Pradhan Mantri Janjatiya Unnat Gram Abhiyan (PMJUGA), was launched as a convergent tribal-village scheme [3].
• 5 Jan 2026: MoTA guidelines on Habitat Rights [1].
• 24 Jun 2026: MoTA advisory on entering the Record of Forest Rights into revenue and forest records [1].
• 10 Sep 2026: First Regional Review Conference, Bengaluru, for the Southern States [1].

• 9 Oct 2026: Second Regional Review Conference, Kolkata, for the Eastern and Central States [1].

• Trajectory: Titles rose from 23.43 lakh (Oct 2023) to ~25 lakh (Aug 2026). That is slow growth, which is why the review series is now aimed at pendency [8][1].

4. Core Static Facts

Item	Fact
Nodal ministry	Ministry of Tribal Affairs (not MoEFCC) [1]
Act	FRA, 2006, Act No. 2 of 2007 [6]
Rules	FRA Rules, 2007 [7]
Habitat rights provision	Section 3(1)(e): community tenures of habitat and habitation for PTGs (now PVTGs) and pre-agricultural communities [6]
Who starts the process	Gram Sabha: receives, consolidates and verifies claims, and prepares maps [6][9]
Committee structure	Section 6: Gram Sabha, then SDLC (examines and prepares the record), then DLC (gives final approval) [6]
Forest Rights Committee	Elected by the Gram Sabha; 10–15 members; at least one-third must be STs [7]
PVTG duty of the DLC	Ensure all PVTGs receive habitat rights, in consultation with their traditional institutions [7]
Types of rights	IFR (individual forest rights), CFR (community forest rights), CFRR (community forest resource rights), Habitat Rights [1][4]
National status (31 Aug 2026)	54 lakh+ received; ~25 lakh titles; ~11 lakh pending; 18 lakh+ rejected [1]
Financial support	DA-JGUA: money for Gram Sabha capacity building and CFR management plans [1][3]
FRA Cells under DA-JGUA*	433 cells sanctioned in 20 States at State and district level [4][5]
CFR Management Plans*	920 plans approved, covering >90,000 ha [4][5]
Digital tools	National FRA Portal and FRA mobile app; States told to connect existing records via API [1]

*These figures come from PIB parliamentary-reply search results. The exact reporting date was not confirmed.

Kolkata conference: the five priority areas [1]

1. Timely disposal of pending claims, and review of rejected claims under the Act and Rules
2. Reconciling FRA data
3. Digitising FRA case records
4. Entering recognised rights into revenue and forest records
5. Faster recognition of CFRR and of Habitat Rights for PVTGs

5. Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Social / Tribal

• The Secretary, MoTA, said the FRA puts the "rights, dignity and aspirations" of forest-dwelling communities at the centre of inclusive development [1].
• More than 18 lakh rejected claims is a serious rights deficit. The conference ordered rejected claims to be reviewed "in accordance with the Act and Rules" [1].
• PVTG habitat roadmaps must be prepared with traditional institutions and the Gram Sabhas of all concerned villages [1][7].

Environmental

• The Secretary said recognising CFRR must be matched by the capacity to exercise it. Gram Sabhas need support to prepare and carry out CFR Management Plans [1].
• A joint MoTA–MoEFCC advisory lets CFR plans be combined with Forest Department working and management plans, while the Gram Sabha keeps central authority [1].

Economic

• Records of title-holders are needed so they can get post-claim support: credit, housing, productive land use and livelihoods. Andhra Pradesh is the model State for this [1].
• DA-JGUA money supports Gram Sabha capacity building and CFR plans [1][3].

Administrative / Federal

• The law is central but delivery is by the States (Tribal Welfare, Revenue and Forest departments). The regional format brings all three line departments and the Tribal Research Institutes (TRIs) to one table [1].
• States were told to fix data discrepancies and delays in Monthly Progress Reports, and to prepare action plans for strengthening Gram Sabhas [1].
• Pendency is clustered in specific districts, so the reviews are district-targeted (Collectors and ITDA Project Officers were present) [1].

Technological

• The National FRA Portal and mobile app support digitisation, geospatial integration and decision-support systems. States were asked to connect their systems through APIs [1].

Legal / Governance

• The Gram Sabha is the statutory authority that starts the process. The SDLC and DLC are only verifying and approving tiers [6][9].
• Entering rights into revenue records with accurate maps turns a title into a right that can be enforced and protected [1].

6. Recent Developments (last 12–18 months)

• 5 Jan 2026: MoTA guidelines on Habitat Rights of PVTGs [1].
• 24 Jun 2026: MoTA advisory on entering the Record of Forest Rights into revenue and forest records [1].
• 31 Aug 2026: National cut-off date for the latest figures: 54 lakh+ claims, ~25 lakh titles, ~11 lakh pending, 18 lakh+ rejected [1].
• 10 Sep 2026: First Regional Review Conference, Bengaluru (Southern States) [1].
• 9 Oct 2026: Second Regional Review Conference, Kolkata (8 Eastern and Central States, with Andhra Pradesh as best-practice invitee) [1].
• Ongoing: Under DA-JGUA, FRA Cells have been sanctioned (433 in 20 States) and 920 CFR Management Plans approved [4][5].

7. Prelims Hooks

• The Second Regional Review Conference on FRA was held in Kolkata on 9 Oct 2026 [1].
• The First Regional Review Conference was held in Bengaluru on 10 Sep 2026 for the Southern States [1].
• Eight States took part in Kolkata: WB, Assam, Tripura, Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar, MP and Chhattisgarh [1].
• Andhra Pradesh was invited as a best-practice State for digitisation and post-claim convergence [1].
• Odisha and Chhattisgarh were praised for pioneering PVTG habitat rights recognition and for the highest number of IFR recognitions [1].
• National FRA status as on 31 Aug 2026: 54 lakh+ claims, ~25 lakh titles, ~11 lakh pending, 18 lakh+ rejected [1].
• The high-pendency States named were Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Assam [1].
• Habitat rights for PVTGs come from Section 3(1)(e) of the FRA [6].
• Section 6 sets up the three-tier process: Gram Sabha, then SDLC, then DLC (final approval) [6].
• The Forest Rights Committee has 10–15 members, at least one-third STs [7].
• The FRA appears on India Code as Act No. 2 of 2007 [6].
• DA-JGUA, also known as PMJUGA, was launched in 2024 [3].
• MoTA guidelines on Habitat Rights: 5 Jan 2026. Advisory on records: 24 Jun 2026 [1].
• 23.43 lakh titles covering >1.8 crore acres had been distributed by 31 Oct 2023 [8].

8. What the 18 Lakh Rejections Really Tell Us

• About one claim in three has been rejected
• More than 54 lakh claims were filed and more than 18 lakh were rejected [1].
• Leave out the ~11 lakh still pending and about 43 lakh claims have been decided. Roughly 4 out of every 10 of those decided claims were rejected [1].

• A law meant to correct a 'historical injustice' is turning down almost as many people as it accepts.

• The official reasons for rejection are of two very different kinds

• Some are clear-cut. The land was occupied after the cut-off date of 13 December 2005, the same land was claimed twice (a duplicate claim), or the land is not forest land at all [10].
• Others depend on someone's judgement. The usual ones are 'lack of evidence', and OTFDs (Other Traditional Forest Dwellers, meaning non-tribal forest dwellers) who 'could not prove 3 generations' of living there [10].

• The second kind is where the process can fail a genuine claimant.

• The three-generation test is often applied more strictly than the law requires

• The Act asks that an OTFD family has lived in the area for three generations. It does not ask them to have held that particular plot for three generations [11].
• Many OTFD claims were approved by Gram Sabhas. They were then rejected by the SDLC (Sub-Divisional Level Committee) and the DLC (District Level Committee), which demanded written documents for all three generations [11].

• Poor forest families rarely have such papers. The higher tiers are overruling the Gram Sabha on a point the law did not make so hard.

• The headline figure does not say which reason applies to how many claims

• The national figure gives only one total for rejections. It is not split by reason [1].
• So nobody can say how many of the 18 lakh were correctly rejected and how many were wrongly rejected. That is why one of Kolkata's five priorities is 'reconciling FRA data' [1].

9. The Case That Most Rejections Are Fair, and Where It Holds

• The strongest opposing argument
• Not every claim on forest land is genuine. Some people occupied land after 2005, and some filed duplicate claims. These are lawful reasons to reject [10].
• Conservation groups argued that rejected claimants were occupying forest land without a right to it. That argument reached the Supreme Court in the Wildlife First litigation (see Section 9 of the note).

• On this view, a high rejection rate shows the screening is working, not that it has failed.

• What is right about it

• The cut-off date and the non-forest-land rule are in the Act. Rejecting claims on those grounds is the law working as written [10].

• So the 18 lakh figure on its own does not prove that 18 lakh people were treated unfairly.

• Where it breaks down

• The FRA Rules accept many kinds of proof, including statements of village elders. The State does not have to hold the documents [7].
• The National Committee on FRA recommended that a claim backed by any two forms of evidence in the Rules should not be rejected without written reasons [12].
• Rejecting for 'lack of evidence', or for missing three-generation papers, often goes against this design [11][12].
• Until rejections are published reason by reason, neither side can show its number is right.

10. Why 'Review the Rejected Claims' Has Not Worked Before

• This is an old instruction, not a new one
• MoTA has asked States 'from time to time' to review all rejected claims, so that no eligible claim is rejected [10].

• Kolkata repeated the same instruction [1]. Repeating an advisory does not change what happens on the ground.

• The same people are asked to check their own decisions

• Under Section 6, the SDLC and DLC (both headed by district officials) are the bodies that rejected the claims [6].

• A review by those same committees has little reason to reverse them, and no outside body checks them.

• Claimants are often not told why they were rejected

• The National Committee on FRA had to recommend that reasons for rejecting or changing a claim be communicated to the claimant [12].

• If you do not know why you were rejected, you cannot appeal or bring better evidence.

• Advisories do not bind the States

• FRA delivery depends on the Tribal Welfare, Revenue and Forest departments of each State [1].
• A MoTA advisory carries no penalty if a State ignores it. The regional conferences add review meetings, but they still have no power to make States comply.

11. At Today's Pace, the Backlog Takes Decades

• Titles have barely grown in three years
• 23.43 lakh titles had been given by October 2023 [8]. The figure was about 25 lakh by August 2026 [1].

• That is only about 1.6 lakh new titles in nearly three years.

• Simple maths on the pending pile

• About 11 lakh claims are still pending [1].
• At roughly 1.6 lakh titles every three years, clearing that pile would take about 20 years, even if no new claims came in.

• The two figures come from different releases, so treat this as a rough guide. But the gap is too large to be a counting difference.

• The delay is in a few districts, which is why the targeting makes sense

• High pendency is concentrated in particular districts of Madhya Pradesh, Odisha and Assam [1].
• Calling Collectors and ITDA (Integrated Tribal Development Agency) Project Officers from those districts goes after the actual bottleneck [1]. The weakness is that the conference set no deadline and no disposal target.

12. Community Rights Are Granted on Paper but Rarely Used

• Very little titled forest is under a working community plan
• 920 CFR Management Plans cover just over 90,000 ha [4][5].
• All titles together cover over 1.8 crore acres, about 73 lakh ha [8].

• So approved community plans cover only about 1% of the land under FRA titles.

• Why a CFRR title without a plan does not help much

• CFRR (community forest resource rights) gives the Gram Sabha the right to protect and manage its forest.
• Without a management plan, the Gram Sabha cannot run harvesting, sales or protection. In practice the Forest Department goes on managing the forest.

• This is why the Secretary said recognition 'must be matched by the capacity to exercise it' [1].

• Merging plans with Forest Department plans carries a risk

• The joint MoTA–MoEFCC advisory lets CFR plans be combined with Forest Department working plans. On paper, the Gram Sabha keeps central authority [1].
• The Forest Department has trained staff and money, and the Gram Sabha usually does not. In a joint plan, the department's priorities can quietly win.
• The 433 FRA Cells under DA-JGUA are the main tool to close this skill gap. They exist in only 20 States [4][5].

13. What Should Change, and Who Should Do It

• MoTA should publish rejections reason by reason, district by district
• The National FRA Portal already collects State data through APIs [1].
• It should show why each claim was rejected (post-2005 occupation, duplicate claim, non-forest land, lack of evidence, the OTFD test) [10].

• This would separate correct rejections from wrong ones, and settle the debate in the counter-case above.

• SDLCs and DLCs must give written reasons and accept the evidence the Rules allow

• This follows the National Committee on FRA: no rejection, without written reasons, of a claim backed by two forms of evidence [12].

• State Tribal Welfare departments should tell committees that statements of elders count as valid proof under the Rules [7].

• States should clarify the OTFD three-generation test

• The test is about living in the area, not holding the same plot for three generations [11].

• MoTA can issue a clear circular, as it did for Habitat Rights (5 Jan 2026) and records (24 Jun 2026) [1].

• States should copy Andhra Pradesh in linking titles to credit and schemes

• Andhra Pradesh was invited because it digitised records and linked title-holders to credit and livelihood schemes [1].

• A title with no credit or scheme support gives the holder little reason to protect or invest in the land.

• District Collectors should get fixed disposal targets

• The pendency is concentrated in particular districts [1]. A district-wise timeline, tracked through the Monthly Progress Reports that the conference asked States to correct, would make Collectors accountable [1].

14. Anchors for Answers

• Data: 18 lakh+ of 54 lakh+ claims rejected (about one in three). About 11 lakh still pending as on 31 Aug 2026 [1]
• Data: Titles rose only from 23.43 lakh (Oct 2023) to about 25 lakh (Aug 2026) [8][1]
• Data: 920 CFR Management Plans covering about 90,000 ha, roughly 1% of the 1.8 crore acres under FRA titles [4][5][8]
• Report/Committee: National Committee on Forest Rights Act: written reasons for rejection, and no rejection of claims backed by two forms of evidence [12]
• Law/Case: FRA Section 6 (Gram Sabha → SDLC → DLC) [6]; Section 3(1)(e) habitat rights [6]; FRA Rules list statements of elders as valid evidence [7]; cut-off date of 13 Dec 2005 [10]
• Scheme: DA-JGUA funds 433 FRA Cells and CFR plans, which builds the Gram Sabha's capacity to use CFRR [4][5]

15. Mains Relevance

• GS-II: Welfare schemes for vulnerable sections; mechanisms, laws and bodies for protecting vulnerable sections (STs, PVTGs); issues in implementation; Centre–State relations.
• GS-III: Conservation; land reforms; inclusive growth.
• GS-I (secondary): Social empowerment of tribal communities.
• Possible question stems: 1. 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. (250 words) 2. Recognition of Community Forest Resource Rights must be matched by the capacity to exercise them. Discuss in the context of Gram Sabha-led forest governance and the integration of CFR management plans with Forest Department working plans. 3. Examine the significance of habitat rights for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) under the FRA. What challenges arise in recognising them?

16. Related Topics to Study Next

• PESA Act, 1996: the other main Gram Sabha-centred law for Scheduled Areas.
• DA-JGUA / PM-JANMAN: the convergence schemes that fund FRA cells and PVTG development.
• PVTGs: criteria and number; essential for understanding habitat rights.
• Fifth and Sixth Schedules: the constitutional framework for tribal areas.
• Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and its 2023 amendment: the overlap between forest diversion and FRA consent.
• Compensatory Afforestation (CAMPA): CFR land and afforestation conflicts.
• Joint Forest Management vs CFR: department-led versus Gram Sabha-led models.
• Supreme Court's Wildlife First FRA litigation (2019 eviction order, later stayed): the case on rejected claims. This item is from general knowledge; it was not retrieved from the sources.

17. NCERT Concepts to Revise

• Forest Rights Act 2006 (Polity): The whole article is about implementing this law, including claims, rejections, titles and the three-tier process.
• Gram sabha (Polity): The Gram Sabha starts and verifies claims and holds authority over community forest management plans.
• Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (Polity): Habitat rights under the FRA apply to PVTGs, a key focus of the conference.
• PESA Act 1996 (Polity): The other Gram Sabha-centred tribal law; it is often compared with the FRA in exam questions.
• PM-JANMAN (Polity): Convergence mission for PVTG habitations, listed with DA-JGUA as the schemes supporting post-title development.
• Centre-state relations (Polity): The law is central but States deliver it, so advisories cannot compel compliance.

18. Common Errors / Trap Areas

• Wrong ministry: the FRA's nodal ministry is MoTA, not MoEFCC. MoEFCC is only a joint party to advisories [1][2].
• Wrong city order: Bengaluru was first (Southern States, 10 Sep 2026) and Kolkata second (9 Oct 2026). Also, AP was a special invitee, not one of the eight participating States [1].
• Mixing up the right types: CFR (community rights over forest produce and uses) is not the same as CFRR (the right to protect, regenerate and manage the community forest resource). Neither is the same as Habitat Rights under Section 3(1)(e), which apply only to PVTGs and pre-agricultural communities [1][6].
• Misreading who decides: the Gram Sabha starts and verifies claims, while the DLC gives final approval. Do not reverse these roles [6][9].
• Mixing up the dates: 5 Jan 2026 is the Habitat Rights guidelines and 24 Jun 2026 is the records advisory. Also, the "joint advisory" on CFR plans and working plans is different from the earlier MoEFCC–MoTA Joint Communication [1][2].