E-Paper
Supreme Court appoints ex-CJI Gavai to head panel scrutinising forest rights claims in Tamil Nadu
The Supreme Court has tasked a panel led by ex-CJI Bhushan Gavai with scrutinising forest rights claims under the FRA in Tamil Nadu.
Prefer HTon Google
The Supreme Court on Friday appointed former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to head a special committee that will scrutinise orders passed by authorities in Tamil Nadu under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), even as it came down hard on the state government for its prolonged failure to initiate the statutory process to identify and adjudicate the claims of forest dwellers in the ecologically sensitive Agasthyamalai landscape.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta constituted the committee, comprising Justice Gavai as chairperson, an officer of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and Tamil Nadu’s principal chief conservator of forests, to oversee the determination of claims by Forest-Dwelling Scheduled Tribe (FDST) and other traditional forest dwellers (OTFD). The committee will scrutinise the orders passed by competent authorities under the FRA and submit its findings to the court in a sealed cover.
The court directed the state to complete the constitution of the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days and conclude the entire process of inviting and adjudicating claims through the statutory three-tier mechanism within five months of their constitution. The committee, in turn, has been asked to complete its scrutiny within two months of the expiry of this outer deadline.
Criticising the state for its inaction, the bench observed that the process under the FRA had remained uninitiated for years even after an interim stay imposed by the Madras high court was vacated by the Supreme Court in 2016.
“Apparently thus, the process under Section 6 was never initiated for years even after the lifting of the stay and seems to have been triggered only after this Court took suo motu cognizance of the prevailing situation,” it said.
The bench added that the state appeared to have “woken up” only after the court directed the removal of encroachments from the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and other reserved forests in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere.
“It is clear that the State Government is primarily responsible for the delay in the process of receiving, identifying and adjudicating the claims under the FRA, 2006. Before this Court took cognizance of the encroachments in the forest area, even the Gram Sabhas had not been constituted,” said the bench, granting the state what it described as a “last opportunity” to complete the exercise.
The committee has been empowered to issue necessary directions to authorities for expeditious disposal of claims. The state will also have to submit monthly progress reports to it.
Senior counsel Jaideep Gupta appeared for the state government, while senior advocate Sriram Panchu represented the state’s department of Social Justice.
The directions came in proceedings concerning large-scale encroachments in the Agasthyamalai landscape, where the court had, in its May 29 judgment, ordered a structured and time-bound process for eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration. The latest proceedings arose from competing claims over the application of the FRA to people residing in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region.
While the state argued that claims under the FRA needed to be examined before eviction, the court accepted the amicus curiae and senior advocate K Parmeshwar’s submission that the statutory protection could not be extended indiscriminately to everyone occupying or cultivating forest land.
The bench clarified that two categories of occupants identified by the state itself would be excluded from consideration under the Act. These are people cultivating forest land while maintaining only temporary residence within it and those residing outside the forest boundary but cultivating land inside it.
The state’s affidavit had identified 4,594 occupants spread across 5,072.64 hectares, of whom 2,643 were engaged in silk cotton cultivation over 3,637.83 hectares. Of these, 1,595 persons were permanently residing in the forest and cultivating land, 232 had temporary residence while cultivating, and 2,767 were residing outside the forest boundary but cultivating within it.
The court said the latter two categories could not qualify as FDST or OTFD merely on the basis of cultivation, since the statutory definitions required claimants to primarily reside in and depend on forest land. For OTFDs, the law specifically requires residence and dependence for at least three generations, or 75 years, prior to December 13, 2005.
The court also rejected the state’s attempt to justify silk cotton cultivation as a traditional minor forest produce protected under the FRA. It noted that the government had relied on historical cultivation and agricultural records but had failed to produce any specific notification recognising silk cotton as minor forest produce under the Act or any other forest law.
Distinguishing between naturally occurring forest produce and commercial cultivation, the bench said the material suggested that silk cotton had been introduced as a planned plantation rather than traditionally collected as minor forest produce.
“The concept of planned cultivation of commercial crop is totally contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce,” said the bench, adding that commercial crop cultivation could not become a recognised forest right to justify continued occupation of reserved forest land.
It further asked the CEC to examine the state’s claim that silk cotton qualified as minor forest produce and investigate the circumstances surrounding cultivation by people residing outside the forest boundary, including whether others were financing or facilitating such activity.
The matter will next be heard on February 1, 2027, when the court will consider an interim status report.
