Justice B.R. Gavai-led panel to oversee FRA claim process; silk cotton cultivation alone held insufficient to claim forest rights in Megamalai
The Supreme Court has ruled that claims of forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD) in Tamil Nadu’s reserved forest and tiger reserve areas must be decided strictly under the statutory procedure laid down in the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and not merely on the basis of present occupation or cultivation.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order in A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others while dealing with issues arising from encroachments, eviction, rehabilitation and forest rights claims in the Megamalai region and the larger Agasthyamalai landscape.
The Court said the benefit of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 is limited to those who satisfy the legal definitions under Sections 2(c) and 2(o), which require primary residence in the forest and dependence on it for bona fide livelihood needs. It made clear that persons who do not meet these conditions are liable to be removed in accordance with law.
A major part of the dispute concerned silk cotton cultivation in forest areas. Tamil Nadu had argued that silk cotton is a minor forest produce and that its historical cultivation in the region should be considered while examining occupation claims. The Court, however, rejected this justification, holding that planned or promoted cultivation of silk cotton as a commercial crop cannot by itself be treated as a recognised forest right under the 2006 Act.
The Bench observed that the concept of “minor forest produce” under the law refers to naturally occurring non-timber forest produce, and not commercial plantation activity that alters the character of forests. It said mere cultivation of silk cotton cannot justify continued presence or occupation inside reserved forest areas.
Relying on data placed before it by the State, the Court noted that occupants in the Megamalai Forest Range had been divided into three categories: those permanently residing in the forest and cultivating; those cultivating with temporary residence; and those residing outside the forest boundary but cultivating forest land. The Court held that Category II and Category III persons cannot qualify as FDST or OTFD merely on the basis of cultivation, since the statute requires primary residence in the forest.
Accordingly, the Court directed that persons in Category II and Category III be excluded from consideration under the Forest Rights Act process.
At the same time, the Court recognised that genuine claims under the FRA must be adjudicated through the three-tier mechanism under Section 6 of the Act — beginning with the Gram Sabha, followed by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and finally the District Level Committee. Referring to its earlier ruling in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests, the Bench reiterated that the Act is a beneficial legislation intended to remedy historical injustice to genuine forest dwellers.
The Court criticised the Tamil Nadu government for substantial delay in implementing the statutory process, observing that even Gram Sabhas had not been constituted until the matter came under judicial scrutiny. Calling it a “last opportunity,” the Bench directed the State to complete formation of the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days. It further ordered that the process of inviting and adjudicating all remaining claims must be completed within five months from the date of constitution of the Gram Sabhas.
To ensure transparency and prevent misuse of the law for regularising encroachments, the Supreme Court constituted a Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai. The Committee will be assisted by an officer of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Tamil Nadu.
This Committee has been tasked with scrutinising orders passed by competent authorities under the FRA, supervising expeditious disposal of claims, and submitting a report to the Supreme Court. The State has been directed to provide monthly progress reports and full logistical support to the panel.
The Court also asked the CEC to give its opinion on the State’s claim that silk cotton should be treated as minor forest produce. It noted apparent contradictions in the State’s affidavit, especially because a large number of persons shown as cultivating silk cotton were residing outside the forest boundary, suggesting possible financing or facilitation that requires deeper examination.
In a related development, the Court directed the CEC to examine an application filed by the National Highways Authority of India concerning a proposal linked to NH-744, including the Puliara-Edamon tunnel section. The Court said the CEC should consider the matter in light of Section 3(2) of the FRA, which permits limited diversion of forest land for specified public facilities, subject to statutory conditions.
The Bench also allowed the Tamil Nadu Law Department to be impleaded in the proceedings and modified an earlier order to shift responsibility for monitoring encroachment-related proceedings from the Law Department to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and subordinate authorities.
The matter has been listed for 1 February 2027 for an interim status report, and will continue as a part-heard case.
Statutory provision(s): Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 Sections 2(c), 2(h), 2(i), 2(o), 3(1)(a), 3(1)(c), 3(2), 4, 5, 6; Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Rules, 2007; Amendment Rules, 2012; Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 Section 16; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
John Kennedy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (SC) : Law Finder Doc id # 3014817
