India
Supreme Court Assigns Former CJI Gavai to Review Tamil Nadu Forest Rights Claims
The Supreme Court has appointed former Chief Justice Bhushan R. Gavai to chair a special committee that will examine orders issued under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA) in Tamil Nadu. The committee, formed by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, will scrutinise the decisions of state authorities regarding claims by Forest‑Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST) and other traditional forest dwellers (OTFD). It will also oversee the identification and adjudication of claims in the ecologically sensitive Agasthyamalai landscape.
The court directed the state to complete the constitution of the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days and to finish the entire process of inviting and adjudicating claims through the statutory three‑tier mechanism within five months of their constitution. The committee is required to finish its scrutiny within two months after that deadline.
The bench criticised the state for years of inaction, noting that the FRA process had remained uninitiated even after a Madras High Court stay was vacated by the Supreme Court in 2016. It said the state only began to respond after the court ordered the removal of encroachments from the Srivilliputhur‑Megamalai Tiger Reserve and other reserved forests.
The committee has the authority to issue directions to authorities for the expeditious disposal of claims and will receive monthly progress reports from the state. Senior counsel Jaideep Gupta represented the state government, while senior advocate Sriram Panchu represented the department of Social Justice.
The directives arise from proceedings on large‑scale encroachments in the Agasthyamalai area, where the court, in a May 29 judgment, ordered a structured, time‑bound process for eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration. The latest proceedings involve competing claims over the application of the FRA to people living in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region.
The state had argued that FRA claims needed to be examined before eviction, but the court accepted submissions 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 would be excluded from consideration under the Act: those 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 listed 4,594 occupants across 5,072.64 hectares, including 2,643 engaged in silk cotton cultivation over 3,637.83 hectares. Of these, 1,595 were permanently residing in the forest, 232 had temporary residence while cultivating, and 2,767 resided outside the forest boundary but cultivated within it. The court held that the latter two categories could not qualify as FDST or OTFD merely on the basis of cultivation, as the statutory definitions require primary residence and dependence on forest land.
The court also rejected the state’s attempt to classify silk cotton as a traditional minor forest produce protected under the FRA, noting that the government had failed to produce any notification recognising silk cotton as such. The bench distinguished between naturally occurring forest produce and commercial cultivation, stating that planned cultivation of a commercial crop is contrary to the concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce.
The committee is asked to examine the state’s claim that silk cotton qualifies as minor forest produce and to 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.