[WSMDiscuss] India in movement…, Forest dwellers in movement… : Supreme Court of India stays tribal eviction order (Indian Express) / Statement From Conservationists On Supreme Court Order

[Jai Sen]

Friday, March 1, 2019

India in movement…, Forest dwellers in movement…

[So the government of India final caved in – to protests and to force exercised upwards from within the Adivasi (Indigenous Peoples/ ‘original dwellers’) community in the country - and after their counsel at first not even appearing in court to fight the case that led to the Court’s order, filed an appeal against the order of the Supreme Court of India last week that opened the possibility of millions of forest dwellers, including but not only Adivasis, being evicted, and where in response the Supreme Court has stayed the order.  Below, the news, and also the text of a strong protest statement from other conservationists in the country (other than those who filed the case that led to the Court’s order) :

Supreme Court of India stays tribal eviction order

Indian Express

Statement From Conservationists On Supreme Court Order

Conservationists Speak Out Against Evictions, Say The Supreme Court Order Is Not Pro-Wildlife and Not Pro-Conservation

            Thanks, Bijoy, for circulating the conservationists’ statement.

            JS



Supreme Court of India stays tribal eviction order

The states have time to file their affidavits till July 10, when the court will examine the matter.

By Express News Service <https://indianexpress.com/agency/express-news-service/> |New Delhi | Published: March 1, 2019 4:28:55 am
https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-stays-tribal-eviction-order-5605855/ <https://indianexpress.com/article/india/supreme-court-stays-tribal-eviction-order-5605855/>
THE SUPREME Court on Thursday put on hold its February 13 order directing states to complete the eviction of tribals and forest dwellers whose claims over forest land were rejected under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.

A bench comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha and M R Shah also directed the states to file affidavits detailing the procedure adopted while rejecting the claims made by the Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs).

The states have time to file their affidavits till July 10, when the court will examine the matter.

The bench was hearing a plea filed by the Union Tribal Affairs Ministry and the Gujarat government seeking modification of its February 13 direction.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the bench that the Centre wished to take a holistic relook at the matter in the larger interest of tribals, farmers and forest dwelling communities.

Saying that its order — asking states to furnish data regarding the number of claims rejected and action taken thereafter — was passed on January 29, 2016, the bench asked what the Centre was doing till now. “Were you sleeping for so many years,” Justice Misra asked.

Mehta submitted that there wasn’t enough assistance to the court from “our side”, and said the Centre had, however, been communicating with the states regarding the procedure to be followed while considering the claims.

Justice Mishra then asked if any review committee was looking into the matter. “We undertake to do that,” replied Mehta.

The bench sought to know if all those making claims were tribals or whether there were other vested interests too,

“We need to look into what the state authorities have done,” said Mehta. He said “this was a human problem more than a legal problem”. The bench then said “protection of forests is a human problem too”.

Mehta said the protection of forest dwelling tribes is consistent with the protection of forests. He said some states had not followed due procedure while considering the claims, despite the Centre’s directions.

Justice Mishra said it may not always be right to ask for documents from tribals as many of them may be having customary rights. Mehta said the Centre would convene a meeting in this regard.

The Tribal Ministry, in its plea, said “the Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTDFs) are extremely poor and illiterate people and not well informed of their rights and procedure under the (2006) Act. They live in remote and inaccessible areas of the forest. It is difficult for them to substantiate their claims before the competent authorities.” It said that it has “time and again, attempted to sensitise the state governments while deciding their claims”.

The Centre said notwithstanding this, it has come to light that the claims of FDSTs and OTFDs were rejected in a summary manner, and due opportunity was not provided to the claimants. “It is also noted that in certain cases, eviction orders are issued even before the appeals under the Act are exhausted,” it said.

The government said it was still uncertain if the data furnished by the states accurately indicates whether the rejection orders were passed after observance of due process of law and natural justice and whether appeal mechanisms had been exhausted.

The bench sought to know if all those making claims were tribals or whether there were other vested interests too,

“We need to look into what the state authorities have done,” said Mehta. He said “this was a human problem more than a legal problem”. The bench then said “protection of forests is a human problem too”.

Mehta said the protection of forest dwelling tribes is consistent with the protection of forests. He said some states had not followed due procedure while considering the claims, despite the Centre’s directions.

Justice Mishra said it may not always be right to ask for documents from tribals as many of them may be having customary rights. Mehta said the Centre would convene a meeting in this regard.

The Tribal Ministry, in its plea, said “the Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTDFs) are extremely poor and illiterate people and not well informed of their rights and procedure under the (2006) Act. They live in remote and inaccessible areas of the forest. It is difficult for them to substantiate their claims before the competent authorities.” It said that it has “time and again, attempted to sensitise the state governments while deciding their claims”.

The Centre said notwithstanding this, it has come to light that the claims of FDSTs and OTFDs were rejected in a summary manner, and due opportunity was not provided to the claimants. “It is also noted that in certain cases, eviction orders are issued even before the appeals under the Act are exhausted,” it said.

The government said it was still uncertain if the data furnished by the states accurately indicates whether the rejection orders were passed after observance of due process of law and natural justice and whether appeal mechanisms had been exhausted.

It asked the court to consider modifying its February 13 order, direct the states to file detailed affidavits regarding the procedure followed and details of the rejection of claims, and withhold the eviction till then.



> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: C.R.Bijoy <cr.bijoy at gmail.com <mailto:cr.bijoy at gmail.com>>
> Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 23:04
> Subject: Conservationists Speak Out Against Evictions, Say The Supreme Court Order Is Not Pro-Wildlife and Not Pro-Conservation
> To: Coalition for Environmental Justice in India <coalition-for-environmental-justice-in-india at googlegroups.com <mailto:coalition-for-environmental-justice-in-india at googlegroups.com>>


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Campaign for Survival and Dignity <forestcampaignnews at gmail.com <mailto:forestcampaignnews at gmail.com>>
Date: Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 8:46 PM
Subject: Conservationists Speak Out Against Evictions, Say The Supreme Court Order Is Not Pro-Wildlife and Not Pro-Conservation
To: <forestrights at yahoogroups.com <mailto:forestrights at yahoogroups.com>>

Please find below a joint statement by some of India's most experienced conservationists and conservation biologists on the recent Supreme Court order.  Contrary to the notion that this is somehow a pro-wildlife measure, they say

"We do not regard this order as pro-conservation. On the contrary, it is a real setback for conservation in India."

Signatures continue to come in and we will update this post <https://forestrightsact.com/2019/02/27/conservationists-speak-out-against-evictions-say-this-is-not-pro-conservation/> as they do.  Other joint efforts by conservationists to respond to this situation are also underway. 

STATEMENT FROM CONSERVATIONISTS ON SUPREME COURT ORDER

As conservationists and environmentalists, we are dismayed by the Supreme Court’s order of February 13th, 2019 to evict claimants under the Forest Rights Act whose claims have been rejected. This order came in a case filed by (among others) a group of wildlife organisations.

We do not regard this order as pro-conservation. On the contrary, it is a real setback for conservation in India. Forest dwellers have for centuries used and managed these forests that we are now considering to be valuable for conservation. The rights of local communities are an integral part of any sustainable and just model of conservation, as is now recognised in international law. Furthermore, the Forest Rights Act not only recognises these rights, it also legally empowers communities to protect their forests and wildlife as well.  It is the first and only law in India that gives those who live in and with forests the power to protect them. Since it was notified into force in 2008, the FRA has been a key weapon in the hands of communities across India, from Niyamgiri to North Bengal to Uttarakhand to Maharashtra, who seek to protect forests and defend themselves against corporate and government resource grabbing.

We do not agree with the claim of the petitioners in this case that their positions represent the interests of conservation. We do not agree with their claim that only "bogus claimants" will be affected by this recent order.  We find it particularly ironic that they went to court claiming that the procedures under this Act are 'arbitrary', and are now seeking to say that those same procedures are so effective and sacrosanct that millions of people should be evicted on the basis of their results.

It is incredibly difficult for local communities who have long been oppressed by the state Forest Departments to secure their rights. We believe that those interested in conservation should be working to strengthen the transparency, community and democratic potential that the FRA creates - not seeking to attack forest dwellers or the law.

We reiterate the call of an open letter in 2014 <http://forestrightsact.com/2014/04/06/joint-open-letter-by-conservationists-movements-against-anti-fra-case-in-supreme-court/> to the petitioners that they should withdraw this case.  We join forest people's organisations in calling upon the Central and State governments to seek the reversal of this unjust order, not least because it will cause immense harm to conservation.

Sincerely,

Nitin Rai, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
Ravi Chellam, Wildlife Biologist & Conservation Scientist, Bengaluru.
M.D. Madhusudan, Nature Conservation Foundation
Ajit Menon, Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Chennai.
Vena Kapoor, Nature Conservation Foundation
Sharachchandra Lele, Distinguished Fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
Harini Nagendra, Professor of Sustainability, Azim Premji University
Siddhartha Krishnan, Fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
Janaki Lenin, Independent Writer, Chennai
Jagdish Krishnaswamy, Senior Fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
Neema Pathak-Broome, Kalpavriksh
Ranjini Murali, Nature Conservation Foundation.
Samira Agnihotri, Ecologist, Bengaluru
Arupjyoti Saikia, Professor, Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati
Aparajita Datta, Senior Scientist, Nature Conservation Foundation
Snehlata Nath, Director, Keystone Foundation
Bharath Sundaram, Assistant professor, Krea University
Nandita Hazarika, Ecosystems-India, Guwahati
Abi Tamim Vanak, Fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
Goutam Narayan, Ecosystems-India, Guwahati
Anindya Sinha, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore
Arati Kumar-Rao, Independent Environmental Photographer and Writer
E. Somanathan, Professor, Indian Statistical Institute
Ankila Hiremath, Fellow, Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment
Kalyan Varma, Nature Conservation Foundation
Marianne Manuel, Dakshin Foundation
Narayan Sharma, Cotton University, Guwahati
Kartik Shanker, Indian Instutute of Science
Shashank Srinivasan, Director, Technology for Wildlife.
Rohan Arthur, Nature Conservation Foundation


______________________________

Jai Sen

Independent researcher, editor

jai.sen at cacim.net <mailto:jai.sen at cacim.net>
Now based in New Delhi, India (+91-98189 11325) and in Ottawa, Canada, on unceded Anishinaabe territory (+1-613-282 2900) 

Current associations : www.cacim.net <http://www.cacim.net/> / http://www.openword.net.in

CURRENT / RECENT publications :

Jai Sen, ed, 2018a – The Movements of Movements, Part 2 : Rethinking Our Dance. Ebook and hard copy available at PM Press <http://www.pmpress.org/>
Jai Sen, ed, 2018b – The Movements of Movements, Part 1 : What Makes Us Move ?, Indian edition. New Delhi : AuthorsUpfront, in collaboration with OpenWord and PM Press.  Hard copy available at MOM1AmazonIN <https://www.amazon.in/dp/9387280101/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1522884070&sr=8-2&keywords=movements+of+movements+jai+sen>, MOM1Flipkart <https://www.flipkart.com/the-movements-of-movements/p/itmf3zg7h79ecpgj?pid=9789387280106&lid=LSTBOK9789387280106NBA1CH&marketplace=FLIPKART&srno=s_1_1&otracker=search&fm=SEARCH&iid=ff35b702-e6a8-4423-b014-16c84f6f0092.9789387280106.SEARCH&ppt=Search%20Page>, and MOM1AUpFront <http://www.authorsupfront.com/movements.htm>
Jai Sen, ed, 2017 – The Movements of Movements, Part 1 : What Makes Us Move ?.  New Delhi : OpenWord and Oakland, CA : PM Press.  Ebook and hard copy available at PM Press <http://www.pmpress.org/>
Jai Sen, ed, 2016a  – The Movements of Movements, Part 1 : What Makes Us Move ? and Jai Sen, ed, 2016b – The Movements of Movements, Part 2 : Rethinking Our Dance (both then forthcoming from New Delhi : OpenWord and Oakland, CA : PM Press), open access ADVANCE PREFINAL ONLINE MOVEMENT EDITIONS @ www.cacim.net <http://www.cacim.net/>
SUBSCRIBE TO World Social Movement Discuss, an open, unmoderated, and self-organising forum on social and political movement at any level (local, national, regional, and global).  To subscribe, simply send an empty email to wsm-discuss-subscribe at lists.openspaceforum.net <mailto:wsm-discuss-subscribe at lists.openspaceforum.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.openspaceforum.net/pipermail/wsm-discuss/attachments/20190301/9f0a2ae4/attachment.htm>