Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 73
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 73,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'catslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 73,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'catslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 73
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Code Context


        trigger_error($message, E_USER_DEPRECATED);

    }
$message = 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 74
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php.'
$stackFrame = (int) 1
$trace = [
	(int) 0 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ServerRequest.php',
		'line' => (int) 2421,
		'function' => 'deprecationWarning',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead.'
		]
	],
	(int) 1 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
		'line' => (int) 74,
		'function' => 'offsetGet',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
		]
	],
	(int) 2 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Controller/Controller.php',
		'line' => (int) 610,
		'function' => 'printArticle',
		'class' => 'App\Controller\ArtileDetailController',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 3 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 120,
		'function' => 'invokeAction',
		'class' => 'Cake\Controller\Controller',
		'object' => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	],
	(int) 4 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php',
		'line' => (int) 94,
		'function' => '_invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(App\Controller\ArtileDetailController) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 5 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/BaseApplication.php',
		'line' => (int) 235,
		'function' => 'dispatch',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 6 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\BaseApplication',
		'object' => object(App\Application) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 7 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 162,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 8 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 9 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 88,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 10 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 11 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php',
		'line' => (int) 96,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 12 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 65,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware',
		'object' => object(Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 13 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Runner.php',
		'line' => (int) 51,
		'function' => '__invoke',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 14 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Http/Server.php',
		'line' => (int) 98,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Runner',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Runner) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => [
			(int) 0 => object(Cake\Http\MiddlewareQueue) {},
			(int) 1 => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {},
			(int) 2 => object(Cake\Http\Response) {}
		]
	],
	(int) 15 => [
		'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/webroot/index.php',
		'line' => (int) 39,
		'function' => 'run',
		'class' => 'Cake\Http\Server',
		'object' => object(Cake\Http\Server) {},
		'type' => '->',
		'args' => []
	]
]
$frame = [
	'file' => '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php',
	'line' => (int) 74,
	'function' => 'offsetGet',
	'class' => 'Cake\Http\ServerRequest',
	'object' => object(Cake\Http\ServerRequest) {
		trustProxy => false
		[protected] params => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] data => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] query => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] cookies => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _environment => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] url => 'latest-news-updates/tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452/print'
		[protected] base => ''
		[protected] webroot => '/'
		[protected] here => '/latest-news-updates/tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452/print'
		[protected] trustedProxies => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] _input => null
		[protected] _detectors => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] _detectorCache => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] stream => object(Zend\Diactoros\PhpInputStream) {}
		[protected] uri => object(Zend\Diactoros\Uri) {}
		[protected] session => object(Cake\Http\Session) {}
		[protected] attributes => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] emulatedAttributes => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
		[protected] uploadedFiles => [[maximum depth reached]]
		[protected] protocol => null
		[protected] requestTarget => null
		[private] deprecatedProperties => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	},
	'type' => '->',
	'args' => [
		(int) 0 => 'artileslug'
	]
]
deprecationWarning - CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311
Cake\Http\ServerRequest::offsetGet() - CORE/src/Http/ServerRequest.php, line 2421
App\Controller\ArtileDetailController::printArticle() - APP/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line 74
Cake\Controller\Controller::invokeAction() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 610
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 120
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51
Cake\Http\Server::run() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 98

Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Code Context
            if (Configure::read('debug')) {

                trigger_error($message, E_USER_WARNING);

            } else {
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 16 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-Govt/articleshow/18523255.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19452,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;forest rights,Tribal Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 16 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-Govt/articleshow/18523255.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19452,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 19317
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;forest rights,Tribal Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.<br /><br />The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta's proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.<br /><br />TOI accessed a copy of the government's affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the 'quality of life' of the tribals may be affected and 'a large number of them displaced' - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.<br /><br />Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&quot;.<br /><br />The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA's Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.<br /><br />On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.<br /><br />The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.<br /><br />The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a 'sipahi (solider)' for the tribals.<br /><br />The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$maxBufferLength = (int) 8192
$file = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php'
$line = (int) 853
$message = 'Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853'
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Code Context
            $response->getStatusCode(),

            ($reasonPhrase ? ' ' . $reasonPhrase : '')

        ));
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 16 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-Govt/articleshow/18523255.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19452,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;forest rights,Tribal Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 16 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-Govt/articleshow/18523255.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19452,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 19317
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;forest rights,Tribal Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.<br /><br />The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta's proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.<br /><br />TOI accessed a copy of the government's affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the 'quality of life' of the tribals may be affected and 'a large number of them displaced' - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.<br /><br />Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&quot;.<br /><br />The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA's Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.<br /><br />On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.<br /><br />The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.<br /><br />The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a 'sipahi (solider)' for the tribals.<br /><br />The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$reasonPhrase = 'OK'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitStatusLine() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 54
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
Code Context
                    $value

                ), $first);

                $first = false;
$response = object(Cake\Http\Response) {

	'status' => (int) 200,
	'contentType' => 'text/html',
	'headers' => [
		'Content-Type' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		]
	],
	'file' => null,
	'fileRange' => [],
	'cookies' => object(Cake\Http\Cookie\CookieCollection) {},
	'cacheDirectives' => [],
	'body' => '<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
        "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
    <link rel="canonical" href="https://im4change.in/<pre class="cake-error"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none');"><b>Notice</b> (8)</a>: Undefined variable: urlPrefix [<b>APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp</b>, line <b>8</b>]<div id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-trace" class="cake-stack-trace" style="display: none;"><a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Code</a> <a href="javascript:void(0);" onclick="document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context').style.display = (document.getElementById('cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context').style.display == 'none' ? '' : 'none')">Context</a><pre id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-code" class="cake-code-dump" style="display: none;"><code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB"></span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">head</span><span style="color: #007700">&gt;
</span></span></code>
<span class="code-highlight"><code><span style="color: #000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&lt;link&nbsp;rel="canonical"&nbsp;href="<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">Configure</span><span style="color: #007700">::</span><span style="color: #0000BB">read</span><span style="color: #007700">(</span><span style="color: #DD0000">'SITE_URL'</span><span style="color: #007700">);&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$urlPrefix</span><span style="color: #007700">;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">category</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">slug</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>/<span style="color: #0000BB">&lt;?php&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">echo&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">$article_current</span><span style="color: #007700">-&gt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">seo_url</span><span style="color: #007700">;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">?&gt;</span>.html"/&gt;
</span></code></span>
<code><span style="color: #000000"><span style="color: #0000BB">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #007700">&lt;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">meta&nbsp;http</span><span style="color: #007700">-</span><span style="color: #0000BB">equiv</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"Content-Type"&nbsp;</span><span style="color: #0000BB">content</span><span style="color: #007700">=</span><span style="color: #DD0000">"text/html;&nbsp;charset=utf-8"</span><span style="color: #007700">/&gt;
</span></span></code></pre><pre id="cakeErr67f03c484a3bd-context" class="cake-context" style="display: none;">$viewFile = &#039;/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp&#039;
$dataForView = [
	&#039;article_current&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
		&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
		&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
		&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 16 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-Govt/articleshow/18523255.cms&#039;,
		&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
		&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
		&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
		&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452&#039;,
		&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
		&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
		&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19452,
		&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
		&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
		&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [[maximum depth reached]],
		&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;
	
	},
	&#039;articleid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
	&#039;metaTitle&#039; =&gt; &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
	&#039;metaKeywords&#039; =&gt; &#039;forest rights,Tribal Rights&#039;,
	&#039;metaDesc&#039; =&gt; &#039;
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of...&#039;,
	&#039;disp&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;English&#039;,
	&#039;SITE_URL&#039; =&gt; &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;,
	&#039;site_title&#039; =&gt; &#039;im4change&#039;,
	&#039;adminprix&#039; =&gt; &#039;admin&#039;
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	&#039;id&#039; =&gt; (int) 19317,
	&#039;title&#039; =&gt; &#039;Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;,
	&#039;subheading&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;description&#039; =&gt; &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;
-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.
&lt;/div&gt;&#039;,
	&#039;credit_writer&#039; =&gt; &#039;The Times of India, 16 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-Govt/articleshow/18523255.cms&#039;,
	&#039;article_img&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;article_img_thumb&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;status&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;show_on_home&#039; =&gt; (int) 1,
	&#039;lang&#039; =&gt; &#039;EN&#039;,
	&#039;category_id&#039; =&gt; (int) 16,
	&#039;tag_keyword&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;seo_url&#039; =&gt; &#039;tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452&#039;,
	&#039;meta_title&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_keywords&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;meta_description&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;noindex&#039; =&gt; (int) 0,
	&#039;publish_date&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	&#039;most_visit_section_id&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;article_big_img&#039; =&gt; null,
	&#039;liveid&#039; =&gt; (int) 19452,
	&#039;created&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;modified&#039; =&gt; object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	&#039;edate&#039; =&gt; &#039;&#039;,
	&#039;tags&#039; =&gt; [
		(int) 0 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 =&gt; object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	&#039;category&#039; =&gt; object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	&#039;[new]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[accessible]&#039; =&gt; [
		&#039;*&#039; =&gt; true,
		&#039;id&#039; =&gt; false
	],
	&#039;[dirty]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[original]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[virtual]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[hasErrors]&#039; =&gt; false,
	&#039;[errors]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[invalid]&#039; =&gt; [],
	&#039;[repository]&#039; =&gt; &#039;Articles&#039;

}
$articleid = (int) 19317
$metaTitle = &#039;LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi&#039;
$metaKeywords = &#039;forest rights,Tribal Rights&#039;
$metaDesc = &#039;
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of...&#039;
$disp = &#039;&lt;div align=&quot;justify&quot;&gt;-The Times of India&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta&#039;s proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;TOI accessed a copy of the government&#039;s affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the &#039;quality of life&#039; of the tribals may be affected and &#039;a large number of them displaced&#039; - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &amp;quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA&#039;s Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a &#039;sipahi (solider)&#039; for the tribals.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.&lt;/div&gt;&#039;
$lang = &#039;English&#039;
$SITE_URL = &#039;https://im4change.in/&#039;
$site_title = &#039;im4change&#039;
$adminprix = &#039;admin&#039;</pre><pre class="stack-trace">include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51</pre></div></pre>latest-news-updates/tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452.html"/>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
    <link href="https://im4change.in/css/control.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"
          media="all"/>
    <title>LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi | Im4change.org</title>
    <meta name="description" content="
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of..."/>
    <script src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-1.10.2.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="https://im4change.in/js/jquery-migrate.min.js"></script>
    <script language="javascript" type="text/javascript">

        $(document).ready(function () {
            var img = $("img")[0]; // Get my img elem
            var pic_real_width, pic_real_height;
            $("<img/>") // Make in memory copy of image to avoid css issues
                .attr("src", $(img).attr("src"))
                .load(function () {
                    pic_real_width = this.width;   // Note: $(this).width() will not
                    pic_real_height = this.height; // work for in memory images.
                });
        });
    </script>
    <style type="text/css">
        @media screen {
            div.divFooter {
                display: block;
            }
        }

        @media print {
            .printbutton {
                display: none !important;
            }
        }
    </style>
</head>
<body>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="98%" align="center">
    <tr>
        <td class="top_bg">
            <div class="divFooter">
                <img src="https://im4change.in/images/logo1.jpg" height="59" border="0"
                     alt="Resource centre on India's rural distress" style="padding-top:14px;"/>
            </div>

        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td id="topspace">&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr id="topspace">
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-bottom:1px solid #000; padding-top:10px;" class="printbutton">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td width="100%">
            <h1 class="news_headlines" style="font-style:normal">
                <strong>Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi</strong></h1>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td width="100%" style="font-family:Arial, 'Segoe Script', 'Segoe UI', sans-serif, serif"><font size="3">
                <div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.<br /><br />The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta's proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.<br /><br />TOI accessed a copy of the government's affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the 'quality of life' of the tribals may be affected and 'a large number of them displaced' - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.<br /><br />Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&quot;.<br /><br />The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA's Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.<br /><br />On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.<br /><br />The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.<br /><br />The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a 'sipahi (solider)' for the tribals.<br /><br />The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.</div>               </font>
        </td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
        <td>&nbsp;</td>
    </tr>

    <tr>
        <td height="50" style="border-top:1px solid #000; border-bottom:1px solid #000;padding-top:10px;">
            <form><input type="button" value=" Print this page "
                         onclick="window.print();return false;"/></form>
        </td>
    </tr>
</table></body>
</html>'

}
$cookies = []
$values = [
	(int) 0 => 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
]
$name = 'Content-Type'
$first = true
$value = 'text/html; charset=UTF-8'
header - [internal], line ??
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emitHeaders() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181
Cake\Http\ResponseEmitter::emit() - CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 55
Cake\Http\Server::emit() - CORE/src/Http/Server.php, line 141
[main] - ROOT/webroot/index.php, line 39

<head>

    <link rel="canonical" href="<?php echo Configure::read('SITE_URL'); ?><?php echo $urlPrefix;?><?php echo $article_current->category->slug; ?>/<?php echo $article_current->seo_url; ?>.html"/>

    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>

$viewFile = '/home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp'
$dataForView = [
	'article_current' => object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

		'id' => (int) 19317,
		'title' => 'Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi',
		'subheading' => '',
		'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India<br />
<br />
The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.<br />
<br />
The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.<br />
<br />
Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta's proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.<br />
<br />
TOI accessed a copy of the government's affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the 'quality of life' of the tribals may be affected and 'a large number of them displaced' - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.<br />
<br />
Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&quot;.<br />
<br />
The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA's Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.<br />
<br />
On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.<br />
<br />
The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.<br />
<br />
The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.<br />
<br />
The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a 'sipahi (solider)' for the tribals.<br />
<br />
The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.
</div>',
		'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 16 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-Govt/articleshow/18523255.cms',
		'article_img' => '',
		'article_img_thumb' => '',
		'status' => (int) 1,
		'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
		'lang' => 'EN',
		'category_id' => (int) 16,
		'tag_keyword' => '',
		'seo_url' => 'tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452',
		'meta_title' => null,
		'meta_keywords' => null,
		'meta_description' => null,
		'noindex' => (int) 0,
		'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
		'most_visit_section_id' => null,
		'article_big_img' => null,
		'liveid' => (int) 19452,
		'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
		'edate' => '',
		'tags' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
		'[new]' => false,
		'[accessible]' => [
			[maximum depth reached]
		],
		'[dirty]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[original]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[virtual]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[hasErrors]' => false,
		'[errors]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[invalid]' => [[maximum depth reached]],
		'[repository]' => 'Articles'
	
	},
	'articleid' => (int) 19317,
	'metaTitle' => 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi',
	'metaKeywords' => 'forest rights,Tribal Rights',
	'metaDesc' => '
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of...',
	'disp' => '<div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.<br /><br />The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta's proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.<br /><br />TOI accessed a copy of the government's affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the 'quality of life' of the tribals may be affected and 'a large number of them displaced' - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.<br /><br />Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&quot;.<br /><br />The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA's Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.<br /><br />On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.<br /><br />The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.<br /><br />The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a 'sipahi (solider)' for the tribals.<br /><br />The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.</div>',
	'lang' => 'English',
	'SITE_URL' => 'https://im4change.in/',
	'site_title' => 'im4change',
	'adminprix' => 'admin'
]
$article_current = object(App\Model\Entity\Article) {

	'id' => (int) 19317,
	'title' => 'Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi',
	'subheading' => '',
	'description' => '<div align="justify">
-The Times of India<br />
<br />
The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.<br />
<br />
The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.<br />
<br />
Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta's proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.<br />
<br />
TOI accessed a copy of the government's affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the 'quality of life' of the tribals may be affected and 'a large number of them displaced' - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.<br />
<br />
Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&quot;.<br />
<br />
The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA's Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.<br />
<br />
On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.<br />
<br />
The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.<br />
<br />
The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.<br />
<br />
The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a 'sipahi (solider)' for the tribals.<br />
<br />
The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.
</div>',
	'credit_writer' => 'The Times of India, 16 February, 2013, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-Govt/articleshow/18523255.cms',
	'article_img' => '',
	'article_img_thumb' => '',
	'status' => (int) 1,
	'show_on_home' => (int) 1,
	'lang' => 'EN',
	'category_id' => (int) 16,
	'tag_keyword' => '',
	'seo_url' => 'tribals-consent-on-forestland-only-in-exceptional-cases-govt-nitin-sethi-19452',
	'meta_title' => null,
	'meta_keywords' => null,
	'meta_description' => null,
	'noindex' => (int) 0,
	'publish_date' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenDate) {},
	'most_visit_section_id' => null,
	'article_big_img' => null,
	'liveid' => (int) 19452,
	'created' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'modified' => object(Cake\I18n\FrozenTime) {},
	'edate' => '',
	'tags' => [
		(int) 0 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {},
		(int) 1 => object(Cake\ORM\Entity) {}
	],
	'category' => object(App\Model\Entity\Category) {},
	'[new]' => false,
	'[accessible]' => [
		'*' => true,
		'id' => false
	],
	'[dirty]' => [],
	'[original]' => [],
	'[virtual]' => [],
	'[hasErrors]' => false,
	'[errors]' => [],
	'[invalid]' => [],
	'[repository]' => 'Articles'

}
$articleid = (int) 19317
$metaTitle = 'LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi'
$metaKeywords = 'forest rights,Tribal Rights'
$metaDesc = '
-The Times of India

The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.

The changed policy cited in the affidavit of...'
$disp = '<div align="justify">-The Times of India<br /><br />The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case.<br /><br />The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta's proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills.<br /><br />TOI accessed a copy of the government's affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the 'quality of life' of the tribals may be affected and 'a large number of them displaced' - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit.<br /><br />Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals &quot;their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion&quot;.<br /><br />The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA's Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects.<br /><br />On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects.<br /><br />The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act.<br /><br />The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides.<br /><br />The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a 'sipahi (solider)' for the tribals.<br /><br />The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.</div>'
$lang = 'English'
$SITE_URL = 'https://im4change.in/'
$site_title = 'im4change'
$adminprix = 'admin'

include - APP/Template/Layout/printlayout.ctp, line 8
Cake\View\View::_evaluate() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1413
Cake\View\View::_render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 1374
Cake\View\View::renderLayout() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 927
Cake\View\View::render() - CORE/src/View/View.php, line 885
Cake\Controller\Controller::render() - CORE/src/Controller/Controller.php, line 791
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 126
Cake\Http\ActionDispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/src/Http/ActionDispatcher.php, line 94
Cake\Http\BaseApplication::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/BaseApplication.php, line 235
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\RoutingMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/RoutingMiddleware.php, line 162
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Routing\Middleware\AssetMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Routing/Middleware/AssetMiddleware.php, line 88
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Error\Middleware\ErrorHandlerMiddleware::__invoke() - CORE/src/Error/Middleware/ErrorHandlerMiddleware.php, line 96
Cake\Http\Runner::__invoke() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 65
Cake\Http\Runner::run() - CORE/src/Http/Runner.php, line 51

Tribals’ consent on forestland only in exceptional cases: Govt -Nitin Sethi

-The Times of India The government has diluted its stand on requiring consent from tribals before handing over their forestlands for projects in an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court on the Vedanta case. The changed policy cited in the affidavit of the government, contrary to existing regulations, could now make it easy for hundreds of other projects as well which require formal consent from tribals who have rights over forestlands under the Forest Rights Act. Congress scion Rahul Gandhi had projected his pro-tribal image by leading the cause of tribals while the government rejected Vedanta's proposal to mine bauxite in their traditional forests basing its decision on the lack of consent from the Dongria Kondh tribe inhabiting the Niyamgiri hills. TOI accessed a copy of the government's affidavit prepared jointly by the tribal affairs and environment ministries that said such consent would be required only in exceptional cases where the government decides the 'quality of life' of the tribals may be affected and 'a large number of them displaced' - both provisions absent in the existing law and regulations and left undefined by the government in the new affidavit. Instead of citing its regulations which bar use of forestlands by project developers without the consent of tribals, the government has instead defended its Vedanta decision on the ground that the project fell over land which is a sacred ground and would deny the tribals "their sacred places of worship and thereby amount to a violation of their fundamental right to manage their own affairs in the matter of religion". The new position is all the more contrary to the one it had taken previously before the apex court claiming tribal rights handed over through the UPA's Forest Rights Act could not be extinguished for development projects. On an odd note, now the consent, government has said, would be required for setting up dispensaries, fair price shops and providing other such basic needs to the tribals in the forestlandbut not for most of the industrial and development projects. The line taken by the government takes its cue from a report the PMO had prepared in November 2012 recommending dilution of tribal rights. The report itself was recently rejected by the government with the environment minister raising concerns that it was in violation of the Forest Rights Act. The PMO had then decided along with the two nodal ministers to only seek exemption for roads and other linear projects from the need for gram sabha consent. But in the court affidavit it has now stated that consent would be required only in exceptional cases when it so decides. The environment ministry had in August 2009 passed orders bringing the forest clearance process in agreement with the Forest Rights Act and making it mandatory that rights of tribals over forests not be extinguished without their consent. But the unease of the government ensured the rules were followed more often in breach though in the case of Vedanta, they were cited, besides other reasons, for blocking the project, while Rahul Gandhi took lead in claiming he would work like a 'sipahi (solider)' for the tribals. The first formal attempt to do away with the regulations came from the PMO after the infrastructure ministries complained against it. But leaking of the PMO report in the public domain led to uproar from tribal groups and forced the government to not go the whole hog in diluting the rules. But stealthily, it seems to have decided to get the same done through an affidavit in the Supreme Court where a judicial approval on the position could help the government seal the diluted norm without an explicit move in public domain.