PIB TrackerLeaving a tiger reserve is voluntary — and worth ₹15 lakh
The government reaffirmed that relocation of villages from critical tiger habitats is voluntary under both the Wild Life Act and the Forest Rights Act, with the per-family package raised from ₹10 lakh to ₹15 lakh in 2021.
What happened
- Relocation from Core or Critical Tiger Habitats is voluntary, the government reaffirmed.
- The basis is Section 38V(5) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 4(2) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
- NTCA Guidelines, 2012 set out the principle of voluntary relocation.
- Financial assistance rose from ₹10 lakh to ₹15 lakh per family in 2021.
- The NCST inquires into complaints and forwards representations to the NTCA.
For Prelims
- Critical Tiger Habitat: the core area of a tiger reserve notified under Section 38V of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, kept inviolate for tiger conservation.
- Section 38V(5): requires that relocation be voluntary, with informed consent of the Gram Sabha.
- Section 4(2), FRA 2006: forest rights holders may not be relocated unless the process, consent and resettlement conditions are satisfied.
- NTCA: the National Tiger Conservation Authority, a statutory body under the 2006 amendment to the Wild Life Act.
- NCST: the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes under Article 338A.
- The package: ₹15 lakh per family since 2021, up from ₹10 lakh — with an option of cash or a resettlement package.
- Implementation: by States and UTs through District Level Committees.
- Section 38-O(1)(c): the power under which NTCA issued its 2012 tourism and relocation guidelines.
For UPSC: The sharpest conservation-versus-rights card available. Use it for the Forest Rights Act and critical wildlife habitats, free prior informed consent and Gram Sabha powers, Project Tiger's inviolate-area doctrine, and rehabilitation adequacy.
What it is NOT: 'Voluntary' is the legal standard, not an automatic description of practice — the reply describes the framework and the complaint mechanism, and does not report how many relocations met the consent requirement.
For Mains
Syllabus: GS3.14 · GS2.12 · Linkage L2
Anchor
Conservation's hardest question is not where the tiger lives but who was living there first.
Substantiation (data)
Voluntary relocation mandated by Section 38V(5) of the Wild Life Act and Section 4(2) of the Forest Rights Act, with the package raised from ₹10 lakh to ₹15 lakh per family in 2021.
Exemplification
The NCST forwards representations on relocation to the NTCA, and District Level Committees implement in the States.
Problematisation
Consent obtained where services have been withdrawn and livelihoods restricted is consent in form only, and the reply reports no data on how many relocations satisfied the statutory conditions.
Way-forward
Publish reserve-wise relocation data with Gram Sabha consent records, and audit post-relocation livelihood outcomes rather than only disbursement.
Position
A conservation model that needs people to leave must be judged by what happens to them after they do.
Deploys into: Conservation + welfare of vulnerable sections (GS3.14, GS2.12) · the Forest Rights Act and critical wildlife habitats, free prior informed consent, and rehabilitation adequacy.
Ministry of Tribal Affairs · 2026-08-13 · PRID 2298801 · PIB source ↗