NEW DELHI (India): The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) has raised concerns over the relocation of tribal and forest-dwelling communities from tiger reserves in India, warning that such actions could violate domestic law and international obligations protecting indigenous peoples. Acting under its Early Warning and Urgent Action procedure, CERD sought clarification from the Government of India on whether relocation under Project Tiger, particularly in Odisha’s Satkosia and Similipal reserves, were carried out with full consent, legal safeguards, and adequate rehabilitation. The committee noted allegations that affected communities were treated as threats to wildlife despite evidence that their traditional practices have long coexisted with forest ecosystems, and cautioned that forced or poorly planned relocations could amount to discrimination.
In a related development, the Indian government earlier this month told the Lok Sabha that relocation from tiger reserves are voluntary under the Wildlife (Protection) Act and the Forest Rights Act. Officials said 257 villages had been relocated with Gram Sabha consent and settlement of legal rights, and that no coercion or involuntary evictions had been reported. While the statement sought to reassure observers, India’s formal written reply to CERD has not been made publicly available, leaving questions over how the government addressed the UN body’s specific concerns. CERD had asked the Indian government to send the information by August 1, 2025.
Earlier, the Odisha Human Rights Commission (OHRC) intensified scrutiny of domestic relocation practices. In late October 2025, the commission directed state forest and revenue officials to submit records regarding alleged irregularities in Satkosia Tiger Reserve relocation, including whether mandatory Gram Sabha meetings were held and forest rights properly settled. Petitioners alleged that some ineligible persons were compensated and that signatures on relocation documents were forged, claims denied by forest officials who maintained all instances of relocation were lawful.
The developments highlight ongoing tension between conservation priorities and indigenous rights. Rights groups and community advocates argue that relocation often lacks free, prior and informed consent and that resettlement packages fail to restore livelihoods or provide adequate basic services. Observers warn that exclusionary approaches not only risk social inequities but also threaten long-term conservation outcomes.
As 2025 ends, tribal relocation from tiger reserves remain under international and domestic scrutiny, with Indian authorities, human rights bodies, and community representatives calling for transparency, legal compliance, and respect for the rights and livelihoods of affected communities.
Click here to follow our WhatsApp channel and get instant updates
