Consider the following statements : 1. The definition of "Critical Wildlife Habitat" is incorporated in the Forest Rights Act, 2006. 2. For the first time in India, Baigas have been given Habitat Rights. 3. Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change officially decides and declares Habitat Rights for Primitive and Vulnerable Tribal Groups in any part of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct ?

This snippet states the Forest Rights Act, 2006 deals with restitution of individual and community forest rights and aims to integrate conservation with livelihood rights.

A student could check the FRA text (definitions and schedules) to see if conservation-related technical terms like 'Critical Wildlife Habitat' are included or whether FRA uses only general terms about rights.

It shows that 'Critical tiger habitat' is a formal concept established by scientific criteria and notified by the State Govt in consultation with an Expert Committee, and that such notifications are expected to consider tribal/forest dweller rights.

One could use this pattern to ask whether FRA cross‑references such notified 'critical' habitat categories (e.g., in exemptions or procedures) or whether those categories are created under a different law (wildlife rules) rather than FRA itself.

This snippet emphasizes that wildlife and forest protection have separate legislative histories (Wildlife Protection Act) and that Parliament's power on wildlife has constitutional limits.

A student can infer it's plausible that definitions of technical habitat categories may be in wildlife legislation/regulations rather than in the FRA, so they should compare the acts' texts/definitions.

Describes the Wildlife Act's role in providing legal protection to habitats and creating project-specific conservation measures (e.g., for tigers), implying habitat categories are central to wildlife law.

Use this to suspect 'Critical Wildlife Habitat' may be a wildlife-law concept (or in related rules/guidelines) and verify by checking the Wildlife Protection Act and associated notifications versus the FRA.

Notes specific rights under the FRA (ownership of minor forest produce), showing the Act enumerates certain rights and definitions relevant to forest dwellers.

A student could inspect the FRA's list of recognised rights and definitions to see if it also defines habitat categories, or if it limits itself to rights and leaves habitat categories to wildlife/forest law.

States the Forest Rights Act, 2006 provides for restitution of deprived forest rights, including community rights over common property resources (scope for 'habitat' / community claims).

A student could use this to infer that communities like the Baiga are eligible to seek habitat/community rights and then check FRA claim registers or state lists for Baiga community claims.

Lists eligibility rules: Act applies to tribal and other traditional forest dwellers and requires primary dependence/residence for at least three generations prior to 2005.

One could test whether Baiga populations in central India meet the three-generation residence criterion (using demographic/local histories) to judge likely entitlement to habitat rights.

Identifies the Gram Sabha as the authority to initiate the process for determining individual or community forest rights under the Act.

A student could check whether relevant Gram Sabhas in Baiga areas have filed community/habitat claims or passed resolutions — a practical way to verify if Baiga habitat rights were pursued/granted.

Describes Baigas as a forest community of Central India historically affected by restrictions on their shifting cultivation and livelihood — indicating they are a traditional forest-dwelling group potentially eligible under the Act.

Combine this historical status with FRA eligibility rules to prioritize searching FRA records or state-level implementation reports for Baiga habitat-rights claims.

Notes that in about 50% of forest area tribals have been given rights like free grazing and cutting fuel-wood — an example of state recognition of forest-dweller rights in practice.

Use this pattern of partial recognition to check state-wise FRA implementation documents for whether similar community-level habitat or resource rights were recorded for Baiga-inhabited districts.

Says the Forest Rights Act (FRA) recognises and secures community rights and community forest rights—establishing a formal legal mechanism for collective habitat/forest rights.

A student could compare the date of the Baiga habitat-rights grant with the FRA's enactment and its timeline of implementation to see if legal recognition already existed elsewhere.

Gives examples of local communities (villagers in Alwar/Sariska) declaring and managing forest areas themselves, showing non-state or community-level habitat protection precedents.

Check historical records/dates of these community declarations to assess whether similar habitat-rights-like arrangements predate the Baiga grant.

Describes the 1972 Wildlife Protection Act and creation of national parks and sanctuaries—illustrates earlier state-driven conservation regimes that affected habitat access and rights.

Compare whether habitat-rights granted to communities differ from or postdate such state declarations (e.g., were community rights recognised within or before the protected-area framework?).

Reinforces that the Wildlife Protection Act (1972) was a major legal framework for conservation and protection areas, implying a long history of legal restrictions/recognitions concerning habitats.

Use this to investigate if any formal community habitat recognitions existed before or alongside the WPA's protected-area designations.

Notes that the Constitution and laws grant rights to communities (e.g., religious communities' institutional rights), illustrating a precedent for collective rights in Indian law.

A student could extend this pattern by researching whether constitutional or statutory collective-rights provisions were earlier used to recognise habitation/land rights of tribal communities before the Baiga instance.

Describes the legal regime (the Forest Rights Act) that recognises forest rights of tribal and other traditional forest dwellers and names a different nodal agency for implementation.

A student could check which ministry is the statutory nodal agency under the Act (implied not MoEFCC here) and thus infer whether MoEFCC would be the official declarant of habitat/forest rights for PVTGs.

Shows that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs formulates policy on particularly vulnerable tribal groups and issues like conservation and development for such groups.

One could infer that formal decisions about rights specific to PVTGs might be within the Tribal Affairs Ministry's remit rather than MoEFCC's, so verify which ministry issues 'habitat rights' notifications.

Gives examples of local communities declaring and governing habitats themselves, illustrating that habitat protection can be community-driven and not always centrally declared by a ministry.

A student might compare instances of community-declared habitats with official government declarations to see which body (local, Tribal Affairs, or MoEFCC) typically formalises habitat rights.

Notes MoEFCC as the nodal agency for implementing environment and forest policies and conservation programmes, indicating its domain over conservation schemes (not necessarily tribal rights).

Use this to test whether conservation responsibilities overlap with statutory tribal/forest-rights functions—if rights are statutory under another ministry, MoEFCC's conservation role may not equate to declaring legal 'habitat rights.'

Shows MoEFCC launches and manages restoration/conservation initiatives in partnership with other organisations, illustrating its role in conservation projects rather than legal adjudication of rights.

A student could distinguish between project/initiative authority (MoEFCC) and legal rights-declaring authority (possibly another ministry), and then check which type 'habitat rights' falls under.