Supreme Court appoints ex-CJI Gavai to head panel scrutinising forest rights claims in Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court appointed a special committee to check how Tamil Nadu authorities have handled claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Former Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai will chair it. The committee matters because the court found that the state had delayed the statutory process for years in the Agasthyamalai landscape.

The committee includes Justice Gavai, an officer of the Central Empowered Committee, and Tamil Nadu’s principal chief conservator of forests. It will scrutinise orders passed by competent authorities under the Act. It can also issue directions to authorities so claims are decided quickly. The committee must submit its findings to the court in a sealed cover.

Tamil Nadu must send the committee monthly progress reports. The committee’s scrutiny will begin after the state completes its claims process. It must finish its examination within two months after the court’s five-month outer deadline expires.

The Forest Rights Act, 2006, provides a statutory process for identifying and adjudicating claims by people who live in and depend on forests. It matters because those claims must be considered before authorities decide whether particular occupants qualify for legal protection. The Act uses two main categories: Forest-Dwelling Scheduled Tribes, or FDSTs, and other traditional forest dwellers, or OTFDs.

The article states that claimants must primarily reside in and depend on forest land. For OTFDs, the law requires residence and dependence for at least three generations, or 75 years, before December 13, 2005. The process works through Gram Sabhas and a statutory three-tier mechanism. Cultivation by itself does not establish eligibility.

That distinction is central in Tamil Nadu. People temporarily residing in forests while cultivating, and people living outside forest boundaries while cultivating inside them, were excluded from consideration. The court said they could not qualify merely because they farmed forest land.

The claims involve 4,594 occupants spread across 5,072.64 hectares in the Agasthyamalai landscape. The scale matters because the court is balancing possible statutory rights against concerns about encroachments, eviction, rehabilitation, and ecological restoration. The state’s affidavit also said that 2,643 occupants cultivated silk cotton across 3,637.83 hectares.

The occupants fell into three categories. First, 1,595 people permanently resided in the forest and cultivated land. Second, 232 had temporary residence in the forest while cultivating. Third, 2,767 lived outside the forest boundary but cultivated land inside it. The figures add up to the full total of 4,594 occupants.

The court allowed claims to be examined under the FRA, but excluded the latter two categories from consideration under the Act. It said claimants must primarily reside in and depend on forest land. The committee will scrutinise the resulting official orders.

The Supreme Court imposed a strict timetable because Tamil Nadu had delayed the Forest Rights Act process for years. The first deadline is 30 days from the court’s direction. Within that period, the state must complete the constitution of the remaining Gram Sabhas. These bodies are part of the statutory process for receiving and examining claims.

After the Gram Sabhas are constituted, Tamil Nadu has five months to complete the entire process of inviting and adjudicating claims through the statutory three-tier mechanism. The deadline covers both receiving claims and deciding them. The committee will then examine the authorities’ orders, rather than replace the claims process itself.

The committee must complete its scrutiny within two months after the five-month outer deadline expires. Tamil Nadu must also provide monthly progress reports. The committee can issue directions to authorities for faster disposal, and its findings must reach the court in a sealed cover.

The decision creates different possible outcomes for people occupying or cultivating forest land. Eligible FDST and OTFD claimants can have their rights examined through the FRA process. The court’s directions matter because the wider proceedings concern encroachments in the Agasthyamalai landscape and include eviction, rehabilitation, and ecological restoration.

The court said temporary forest residents who cultivate land, and people living outside the forest while cultivating inside it, cannot qualify merely through cultivation. In the state’s figures, those groups included 232 temporary residents and 2,767 outside residents. Their claims are excluded from consideration under the Act as described in the order.

The 1,595 people permanently residing in the forest and cultivating land may have their claims examined, subject to the Act’s requirements. Authorities must invite and adjudicate claims through the three-tier mechanism. Final outcomes will depend on those decisions and the committee’s scrutiny, so the article does not state how many people will ultimately retain land or be removed.

The court criticised Tamil Nadu because the statutory process under Section 6 had not begun for years. This remained true even after the Madras High Court’s interim stay was vacated by the Supreme Court in 2016. The bench said the process appeared to have been triggered only after the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the situation.

The court also linked the delay to its proceedings on encroachments in the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and other reserved forests. It said the state appeared to have “woken up” only after directions to remove encroachments in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere. Before that intervention, the bench said, even the Gram Sabhas had not been constituted.

The court called its new timetable a “last opportunity” for the state. Tamil Nadu must now constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas, complete the claims process, and submit monthly progress reports. The committee will review the authorities’ orders after that process ends.

The court distinguished naturally occurring minor forest produce from planned commercial cultivation because the FRA protects defined forest-dependent rights, not every activity carried out on forest land. The state tried to justify silk cotton cultivation as traditional minor forest produce. The court was not persuaded by that argument on the material described in the article.

Tamil Nadu relied on historical cultivation and agricultural records. But it had not produced a specific notification recognising silk cotton as minor forest produce. The court therefore rejected the attempt to treat the cultivation as automatically protected under the Act. It also said that cultivation alone could not establish FDST or OTFD status.

This reveals a narrow, evidence-based approach to forest rights. Claimants must primarily reside in and depend on forest land. OTFDs must show at least three generations, or 75 years, of such residence and dependence before December 13, 2005. Commercial or planned cultivation cannot replace those statutory requirements.