Chhattisgarh government’s May 2026 task force to expedite Forest Rights Act (FRA, 2006) and PESA Act (1996) implementation has sparked civil society controversy. Critics argue that parallel bureaucratic structures undermine the core purpose of both laws: tribal self-governance through Gram Sabhas.
Task Force Structure
- 18-member apex body headed by Chief Minister
- 12-member implementation body headed by Chief Secretary
- Functions: mapping CFR claims, reviewing pending applications, formulating PESA strategies
- Model based on Madhya Pradesh task force (November 2024)
Three Core Controversies
1. Undermining Statutory Bodies
PESA and FRA delegate authority to Gram Sabhas at village level. Task force creates parallel top-down structure, reducing Gram Sabha autonomy and decision-making power.
2. Ideological Organizations in Policy
Civil society alleges that organizations like Janjati Suraksha Manch (JSM) and Akhil Bharatiya Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram (ABVKA) now gain administrative legitimacy in policy-making through task force membership.
3. Risk of Religious Division
These organizations have demanded that only non-converted tribals be included in Gram Sabhas — raising concerns about administrative legitimacy for religiously-divisive agendas.
FRA vs PESA Framework
- PESA (1996): Extends Part IX (Panchayat) to Fifth Schedule areas; Gram Sabha has absolute control over natural resources
- FRA (2006): Redresses historical injustice to Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes; provides individual + CFR rights; Gram Sabha initiates claims
UPSC Angles
Prelims:
- PESA 1996, FRA 2006 — enactment years
- Gram Sabha as core decision-making unit
- Fifth Schedule areas coverage
Mains (GS 2):
- Tension: administrative efficiency vs democratic decentralization
- Constitutional federalism and tribal rights
- Role of parallel structures in institution-building
Practice Question
“Task forces undermine rather than strengthen tribal self-governance.” Analyze the controversy with reference to FRA and PESA spirit. (15 Marks)
Also Read:
