Overview
Forms are true witnesses to their time. Filling in a form changes this commonplace medium into a unique document - proof of a person’s existence.
One such form is the Forest Rights Act (FRA) claim form which is the primary interface through which Traditional Forest Dwellers seek legal recognition of their land and forest rights under the 2006 Act.
Traditional forest dwellers are communities that have lived in and depended on forests for generations. Their lives, culture, and livelihoods are closely connected to the forest, which provides them with food, shelter, medicine, and other essential resources. The Forest Rights Act, 2006, recognises the rights of eligible forest-dwelling communities over the land and resources they have traditionally used.
However, as per an article in The Guardian, about 8 million indigenous people were at a threat of being evicted from forest land that their ancestors have lived in for over a millennia.
The news
Compiled statistics from PIB data (01.01.2023 to 01.01.2026): 282,532 total claims approved, 275,925 pending and 160,715 rejected. Source: Press Information Bureau.
Headlines: “A huge land grab is threatening India’s tribal people. They need global help” (The Guardian); “Nearly 48,000 rejected community forest rights claims show FRA implementation failures: Experts”; “Over 83% of claims received under the Forest Rights Act rejected in Karnataka”.
Why design a physical form?
Redesigning a physical form remains crucial in India because it acts as the primary bridge to inclusion for millions of citizens. While urban regions and tech-savvy populations rely heavily on digital apps, physical paperwork dictates daily life across rural communities, government offices, and local markets.
Physical document design is not just an aesthetic choice; it directly impacts accessibility, literacy barriers, and systemic efficiency.
Glimpse of the redesigned form
Current form filing process
The Forest Rights Act (2006) established a process through which communities can seek formal recognition of the forests they have traditionally used, managed, and stewarded. Communities prepare the claim, collectively map their forests, fields, rivers and customary boundaries as evidence, and submit it to the Forest Rights Commission, which conducts a field visit. Claims are verified on the ground, then go to the Sub District Level and District Level Committees for approval, remand or rejection, after which a title is issued and recorded in the Records of Rights.
Process framework and audit
Jesse James Garrett's Elements of UX, applied bottom-up: strategy, scope, structure, skeleton and surface.
Objectives: to make Forest Rights Act (FRA) claim forms easier to understand and fill out, especially for tribal and forest-dwelling communities. Needs: simplify complex legal language; make forms easier to navigate and complete; improve accessibility through clearer instructions and regional language support; help applicants understand the information and documents required.
Scope: Form A is for individuals or families claiming rights over land they cultivate; Form B for communities claiming shared rights to use forest resources; Form C for communities claiming the right to protect, manage, and govern a defined forest area. Forms B and C are the scope of this project.
Current structure: two different forms for two use cases, with claimant details, FRA rights details, attached evidence, and a loose chart paper with map drawings.
A macro-level audit
Structure and space: fields have no answer lines; one line for multiple family members; two overlapping numbering systems; key instructions in small, light print. Reading and response: plain Yes/No choices without instructions; text wrapping splits legal references; mixed type sizes; English only, with legal terms many claimants cannot read; no mandatory markers or examples, so incomplete forms get returned.
A micro-level audit
User interaction issues (experience delivered): comprehension, cultural alignment, emotional discomfort, power balance, inclusivity, trust. User interface issues (how easily a form can be filled): clarity issues, structural issues, cognitive load, flexibility of input.
Issues found include no legitimate logos, terms that are not understandable, inconsistent numbering and section division, local terms, no space to fill, unexplained short forms, open-ended fields, legal cross references, repeated fields across both forms, map instructions buried in a paragraph, and too little space for the messy reality of geographical boundaries.
Telephonic interview insights
From an implementation partner at Sahjeevan, Kutch, Gujarat: “B and C forms are usually always filled together.” “The communities have a lot of other rights that are not recorded on paper, for example land used for cultural melas. These are not taken account of.” “Communities have no access to the form and even if they do it is difficult to comprehend what the form is asking.” “Language is too difficult to understand even for us. There is ambiguity of what to fill.”
Audit summary
Issues plotted by how hard they are to fix against how much fixing them would help claimants: jargon, open-ended questions, no space to write, unclear documentation and evidence, inability to trust the form, cultural activities not included, transparency and layout, alongside systemic issues.
How might we
How might we make a complex right accessible to people trying to claim it?
Proposed information architecture
A unified, bilingual form that merges Form B and C to better represent community claims. By prioritizing Gujarati and simplifying language, the design improves accessibility while maintaining administrative clarity. The proposed framework is intended to scale across regional languages.
Structure: Claim for (Community Rights or Community Forest Resource); A. Information about the claimant; B. Claim for Community Rights with evidence; C. Claim for Community Forest Rights with evidence; D. Declaration; plus a map.
Macro-level design
Single-column grid with a header; margins of 20mm left for filing and 15mm right; structure using sections; Inter Regular 9pt/13.5 for legibility at small sizes; a graphic framework of cells, tables and horizontal lines; footer for administration.
Micro-level design
Logo and branding for credibility; bilingual, simpler language; headings with plain-language subheadings; a footer with claim number; free-response line fields; Yes/No choices for easy scanning; clear lists of what counts as proof; tables; an open field for other evidence; a declaration for accountability; and a map sheet with clear mapping instructions, a large grid-based drawing area and a legend.
Future scope
Digital assistance would be added only if testing shows a real need, such as a printed base map, GPS-assisted marking or a QR code linking paper sheets to claims, after reviewing the Ministry of Tribal Affairs’ national FRA portal and app.
Guiding principles: paper stays the legal record; the community owns its map data; every digital step has an offline or paper fallback.
Resources
- The Formbook, Borries Schwesinger
- Recognition & Mapping of Community Forest Resource (fra.org.in)
- Mapping the potential of Community Forest Resource Rights in central India, Mongabay India
- States asked to map forest areas, create atlas for faster FRA implementation: Centre, ThePrint.in
- A huge land grab is threatening India’s tribal people. They need global help, The Guardian
- Poor implementation of the Forest Rights Act hurts tribals, India Water Portal