After the tribals claimed their rights to live in the forest were rejected under the Forest Rights Act, the Supreme Court on Thursday, put its February 13th order in which it asked 17 stated to evict a large population of nearly one million tribals.
The apex court had ordered the Chief Secretaries of these states to evict the tribal and other households whose claims of the right to live in forests were rejected on various grounds, including the absence of proof that the land was in their possession for at least three years. It had also said the eviction should be carried out on or before the next date of hearing, July 24.
On Thursday, the top court had also directed the states to file a detailed affidavit on processes being adopted for passing the eviction orders against the tribals and to place the rejection orders of claims on record. It said that the affidavit should also point out who rejected the claim and under which provision of the law. The states will have to also provide information on whether the tribals were served with the rejection order and also whether the various level of committees had seen these aspects.
The Supreme Court also admonished the Centre for “sleeping for several years”. “You just woke up from the slumber”, the court said to solicitor general Tushar Mehta who admitted there was a lapse on the part of the Centre. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta on Wednesday mentioned the Centre application seeking a stay on the eviction before a Justice Arun Mishra-led bench, which agreed to take it up on Thursday. The Maharashtra government also admitted to its failure to point out the relevant issues on the previous date of hearing.
Centre said they had been writing to the states since 2014 and such a situation has arisen due to the non-cooperation on their part. On Wednesday, the court had agreed to take up the Centre's plea for a relook into the February 13 order.
The Forest Rights law provides for giving land rights to those living on forest land for at least three generations before December 31, 2005. The law itself has been criticised by both wildlife activists and those fighting for the rights of tribespeople and forest-dwellers, though for different reasons.