‘Sheer callousness’: Bombay High Court slams Maharashtra over Forest Rights Act delay

3 min readMumbaiJul 13, 2026 01:02 PM IST

A bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata, while hearing a petition filed by NGO Vanashakti, directed the Maharashtra government to explain why key provisions of the law remain unimplemented and place on record a timeline for enforcing them. (File)

The Bombay High Court last week pulled up the Maharashtra government for failing to effectively implement the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, nearly two decades after it was enacted, calling the delay a result of “sheer callousness” and a “lethargic attitude”.

The Forest Rights Act, introduced in 2006, recognizes Individual Forest Rights (IFR) for farming and habitation, and Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights to sustainably manage and use forest resources

A bench of Justices Ajey S Gadkari and Kamal R Khata, while hearing a petition filed by NGO Vanashakti, directed the Maharashtra government to explain why key provisions of the law remain unimplemented and place on record a timeline for enforcing them.

The bench noted that the Act has not been properly implemented in the state. “It is an admitted fact on record that, till date, the 2006 Act has not been properly, rather effectively, implemented in the State of Maharashtra,” the court observed, while criticising the government for offering “various excuses” instead of complying with its mandatory provisions.

The high court also noted that the petition has been pending since 2014 and that even after more than 12 years, the state had failed to provide any convincing explanation for the delay. “It is pertinent to note here that the present petition was filed on April 7, 2014, and for over 12 years, except for giving numerous excuses, no cogent and sufficient reason has been given for not implementing the mandatory provisions of the said Act,” the bench observed.

What the government told the court

Appearing for the state government, its counsel submitted that the rights of tribals were still being ascertained and decided.

The high court rejected the explanation. “We are unable to accept such a submission, for the plain and simple reason that it certainly does not take more than a decade to decide such rights. It is sheer callousness and a lethargic attitude on the part of the concerned authorities. Such conduct is unacceptable.”

Story continues below this ad

The court has directed the Additional Chief Secretary of the Forest Department to file a detailed affidavit explaining why the law has not yet been effectively implemented in Maharashtra.

Posting the matter for further hearing on August 6, the bench also directed the government to specify the time frame within which it proposes to implement the provisions of the Forest Rights Act.

© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd

Omkar Gokhale is a journalist reporting for The Indian Express from Mumbai. His work demonstrates exceptionally strong Expertise and Authority in legal and judicial reporting, making him a highly Trustworthy source for developments concerning the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court in relation to Maharashtra and its key institutions.

Expertise & Authority

Affiliation: Reports for The Indian Express, a national newspaper known for its rigorous journalistic standards, lending significant Trustworthiness to his legal coverage.

Core Authority & Specialization: Omkar Gokhale's work is almost exclusively dedicated to the complex field of legal affairs and jurisprudence, specializing in:

Bombay High Court Coverage: He provides detailed, real-time reports on the orders, observations, and decisions of the Bombay High Court's principal and regional benches. Key subjects include:

Fundamental Rights & Environment: Cases on air pollution, the right to life of residents affected by dumping sites, and judicial intervention on critical infrastructure (e.g., Ghodbunder Road potholes).

Civil & Criminal Law: Reporting on significant bail orders (e.g., Elgaar Parishad case), compensation for rail-related deaths, and disputes involving high-profile individuals (e.g., Raj Kundra and Shilpa Shetty).

Constitutional and Supreme Court Matters: Reports and analysis on key legal principles and Supreme Court warnings concerning Maharashtra, such as those related to local body elections, reservations, and the creamy layer verdict.

Governance and Institution Oversight: Covers court rulings impacting public bodies like the BMC (regularisation of illegal structures) and the State Election Commission (postponement of polls), showcasing a focus on judicial accountability.

Legal Interpretation: Reports on public speeches and observations by prominent judicial figures (e.g., former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai) on topics like free speech, gender equality, and institutional challenges.

Omkar Gokhale's consistent, focused reporting on the judiciary establishes him as a definitive and authoritative voice for legal developments originating from Mumbai and impacting the entire state of Maharashtra. ... Read More

Tags:

Forest Rights Act 2006