The piece examines how changing forest-rights consent rules could alter approval risk, timing and accountability for public infrastructure projects in India.
A proposed change to project consent
The Committee on Public Undertakings has proposed that consent from 70-75% of villages should be sufficient for large hydropower infrastructure projects of national importance, rather than consent from every gram sabha affected by a project. The recommendation arose from NHPC Ltd.’s difficulty in securing consent for forest diversion linked to the Teesta-IV hydroelectric power project. It also asked that compliance with the Forest Rights Act be completed at the pre-feasibility stage, to avoid delays at Stage-II clearance. On August 31, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs told the Ministry of Power that the Act has “no provision for obtaining” gram sabha consent for forest clearance. The proposal therefore remains part of an inter-ministerial dispute, rather than a reported change in law.
Consent is an approval condition, not a tender score
The mechanism matters to public procurement because gram sabha consent is treated as a condition for advancing projects that divert forest land, rather than as a criterion used to rank competing bids. Since the Supreme Court’s 2013 Niyamgiri ruling, the Forest Rights Act has been understood to apply to all projects and to require gram sabha consent. Proposals to divert forests for non-forest use have consequently been expected to demonstrate compliance with the Act and prior informed consent from the concerned gram sabhas, with certification by the gram sabhas and State governments. Moving that requirement to the pre-feasibility stage would bring a key social and legal approval earlier in project development. Deferring it until later can leave a project proponent committed to funds before consent is secured.
The timing of compliance has already shifted
The source article describes repeated changes in how ministries have handled the consent requirement. In 2014, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change said consent might not be needed for some linear projects, including roads, canals, pipelines, optical fibres and transmission lines, unless specified vulnerable communities’ rights were affected. The Ministry of Tribal Affairs asked States not to follow that direction. Rules in 2014 and 2017 also allowed district collectors to certify that gram sabhas had consented, although the collector headed the district committee responsible for recognising individual claims under the Forest Rights Act. Allegations of false certificates later surfaced; the source does not establish those allegations. In 2019, the environment ministry said compliance could wait until final approval rather than the in-principle Stage-I decision, a position opposed by the tribal affairs ministry.
A supermajority would redistribute project risk
For procuring authorities and businesses, replacing consent from all affected gram sabhas with a supermajority would change who bears the risk of unresolved opposition. A project could potentially proceed despite dissent from some villages, while the public body and project proponent would still have to manage the legal, social and implementation consequences. The proposal sits within a wider administrative shift: in 2021, the environment and tribal affairs ministries announced a move from working in silos towards convergence, replacing a 2015 guideline on community forest-resource planning with a more bureaucratic role for State forest departments. The Prime Minister has also emphasised that infrastructure delays can increase costs and defer benefits. The procurement lesson is that faster approvals may improve schedule certainty, but changing consent rules also changes the safeguards against contested delivery.
IN NUMBERS
The Committee’s recommendation places a practical procurement concern—securing approvals without delaying infrastructure—against the Forest Rights Act’s consent framework. Whether the proposal advances, and how it is reconciled with the Supreme Court’s position and the Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ memorandum, will determine the rules under which future forest-diversion projects are planned and procured.
Reported from thehindu.com, 2026-09-10. The Tender Wire is published by Otnox.
