The Forest Rights Act, 2006, and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, reflect fundamentally different visions of conservation — one rooted in ecological integrity, the other in social justice. Discuss with recent examples.

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 prioritises species and habitat conservation but the Forest Rights Act, 2006 prioritizes the customary rights of the forest-dwelling communities.

Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 – Ecological Integrity The act Establishes National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Conservation Reserves with strict restrictions on human activities. Their main objective is to protect the ecological sanctity of the area. They Prioritise habitat protection for endangered species such as tigers, elephants and rhinos. India has declared 6% of the total land as protected area. Some of the most notable examples are, Bandipur, Jim corbett, Kaziranga & Gir national park. Recent initiative of Cheetah

Reintroduction Project and Supreme Court's intervention on underground power lines in GIB habitats reflects habitat-centric conservation.

Forest Rights Act, 2006 – Social Justice

The act recognises Individual Forest Rights (IFR) and Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers. It empowers Gram Sabhas to conserve and manage forests through community participation. Recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that relocation from protected areas requires due recognition and settlement of rights under the FRA. For eg, Gram Sabhas in Niyamgiri hills. rejected bauxite mining, asserting community rights under the FRA and protecting ecologically sensitive forests.

However, these acts must not be seen differently. Focus must be given on landscape based management, co-management models and recognition of rights under FRA should precede relocation, diversion of forests, or declaration of critical habitats as recommended by the joint committee on FRA.