SC relief for 1.2 lakh tribals in Odisha

Also Read

Odisha Women Commission seeks report from police on rape of woman at gunpoint in Bhubaneswar

11 hours ago

Odisha launches ‘Sujal’ campaign to promote water conservation, safe drinking water

15 hours ago

New Delhi: Around 1.2 lakh tribals of Odisha heaved a sigh of relief as the Supreme Court Thursday stayed its February 13 order directing 21 states to evict tribals as the authorities had turned down their right to live in the forests.
A three-judge bench of the apex court comprising Justices Arun Mishra, Navin Sinha and MR Shah asked the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit within four months mentioning the process adopted to reject the claims of forest dwellers.
“We stay and hold our February 13 order,” the bench observed.
The apex court order provided relief to 1.2 lakh tribals and 20,000 other forest dwellers. Odisha government had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court stating that 5,73,867 claims had been filed by members of the Scheduled Tribes (STs) and 31,687 by Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs). Out of these, 1,22,250 claims of STs and 26,620 claims of OTFDs have been rejected.
The court has listed the matter for hearing July 10.
Earlier, the Union Government Wednesday urged the apex court to withhold its February 13 order asking states to evict nearly 11.8 lakh forest dwellers whose claims were rejected. The top court had then agreed to hear Centre’s plea.
Notably, under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, commonly called the Forests Rights Act, ensured the rights of the STs and OTFDs on local forest areas. The Gram Sabhas were entrusted with the task of passing resolutions and verifying them with the state government, following which STs and OTFDs could enjoy their traditional rights over forests.
“You have been in a slumber all this while, and now after we passed this order, you are seeking a modification?”, the bench said and reminded the Centre that it was in 2016 when the state governments were directed to file details of the rejection of claims and the follow-up action. During the hearing the bench wondered “are these people all tribals or normal people living there”.