Ex-CJI Gavai to head panel vetting forest rights claims in Tamil Nadu

The Supreme Court appointed former Chief Justice of India Bhushan R. Gavai to chair a special committee in Tamil Nadu. The committee will examine how authorities have handled claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Its work matters because the state delayed starting the legal process for years in the ecologically sensitive 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 made by competent authorities and oversee claims from forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. It can also direct authorities to dispose of claims quickly.

The committee must submit its findings to the court in a sealed cover. Tamil Nadu must constitute remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days and finish inviting and deciding claims within five months. The committee then has two months to complete its scrutiny, while the state must provide monthly progress reports.

The Forest Rights Act, 2006, provides a statutory framework for identifying and deciding claims by people who live in and depend on forest land. It matters because forest occupation alone does not automatically create a protected claim. Authorities must examine whether an applicant fits the categories and conditions set by the law.

The article identifies two main groups: forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes, or FDSTs, and other traditional forest dwellers, or OTFDs. For OTFDs, the law requires residence and dependence on forest land for at least three generations, or 75 years, before December 13, 2005. The claims move through a statutory process beginning with Gram Sabhas.

In Tamil Nadu, the Act is being applied to disputed occupations in the Megamalai region. The Supreme Court said people who only cultivate inside the forest while living outside, or who stay there temporarily, cannot qualify merely because they farm there. Their residence and dependence must satisfy the statutory requirements.

The FRA’s three-tier process is designed to identify and adjudicate forest-rights claims through local and higher authorities. It matters because claims should be examined through a legal structure rather than accepted solely because someone occupies or cultivates forest land. The process also creates stages for checking evidence and decisions.

The article does not name each tier or describe every appeal step. It states that the process begins with the constitution of Gram Sabhas, which invite and consider claims. Those claims then move through the statutory three-tier mechanism. Competent authorities pass orders, and the special committee will scrutinise those orders for the Supreme Court.

Tamil Nadu must constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days. It must complete inviting and adjudicating claims within five months after their constitution. The committee has two further months to review the decisions and may issue directions for faster disposal. Monthly progress reports will track the exercise.

The disputed occupations in Megamalai involve a large area and thousands of people. Tamil Nadu’s affidavit identified 4,594 occupants spread across 5,072.64 hectares. These figures describe the scale of the conflict over whether people living in or cultivating the forest can claim protection under the Forest Rights Act.

Silk-cotton cultivation accounts for a major share of the identified occupation. The state said 2,643 occupants were engaged in silk-cotton cultivation over 3,637.83 hectares. The affidavit also divided occupants by residence and cultivation patterns, which became central to the court’s interpretation of eligibility.

It identified 1,595 people permanently residing in the forest and cultivating land. Another 232 had temporary residence while cultivating, while 2,767 lived outside the forest boundary but cultivated inside it. The court said the latter two groups could not qualify merely on the basis of cultivation, because the law requires residence and dependence.

The FRA is not framed as a general protection for everyone using forest land. The court said claimants must primarily reside in and depend on forest land. This requirement matters because it distinguishes forest-dependent communities from people who may use forest land for cultivation without living there as their established home.

Tamil Nadu identified 232 people who cultivated while maintaining temporary residence inside the forest. It also identified 2,767 people who lived outside the forest boundary but cultivated land within it. The court held that neither category could qualify as an FDST or OTFD merely because of cultivation.

For OTFDs, the law sets an additional historical test: residence and dependence for at least three generations, or 75 years, before December 13, 2005. The court therefore directed that these categories be excluded from consideration under the Act. The remaining claims must still be examined through the statutory process.

The court rejected an automatic link between silk-cotton plantations and protection under the Forest Rights Act. The key issue was not simply whether a person cultivated a crop in forest land. Eligibility depended on whether the person belonged to a protected category and primarily lived in and depended on the forest.

Tamil Nadu’s affidavit listed 2,643 people cultivating silk cotton across 3,637.83 hectares. But the larger list also showed different residence patterns. Some cultivators lived permanently in the forest, while others stayed temporarily or lived outside the forest boundary. The court treated those differences as legally important.

The court said the latter two categories could not qualify merely on the basis of cultivation. For OTFDs, the law requires residence and dependence for three generations, or 75 years, before December 13, 2005. Thus, a silk-cotton plantation by itself could not establish protected status under the FRA.

A finding that occupants do not qualify under the FRA would remove the statutory protection available to eligible forest-rights claimants. The court has already ordered a structured, time-bound process concerning eviction, rehabilitation, and ecological restoration in the Agasthyamalai landscape. The claims process determines which occupants can invoke the Act before that process advances.

The court’s latest directions separate qualifying claims from people who only cultivate while living temporarily in the forest or living outside it. Those two categories cannot qualify as FDSTs or OTFDs merely through cultivation. Authorities must now invite and adjudicate claims through the statutory mechanism, while the special committee reviews their orders.

The article does not state the final outcome for any individual occupant. It does state that Tamil Nadu must complete the exercise within the prescribed deadlines, and that the committee will report to the court. The wider consequence will depend on those findings, including how eviction, rehabilitation, and ecological restoration proceed.