Law & Justice
Supreme Court Excludes Temporary and Non-Resident Silk Cotton Cultivators from Forest Rights in Agasthyamalai
The Supreme Court, on Friday, ruled that people who have temporary residence in the Agasthyamalai biosphere or who live entirely outside the forest boundaries cannot be considered traditional forest dwellers simply because they cultivate silk cotton within the forest. The bench, led by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, directed that persons in Category II and Category III, as identified in the Department of Revenue’s additional affidavit dated 6 September, be excluded from recognition as forest‑dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA Act). According to the affidavit, 232 individuals are cultivating the forest area with temporary residence, while 2,767 people who occupy 2,867.70 hectares of land reside outside the forest boundary and manage silk cotton cultivation. The order follows a May 2026 judgment that set out a structured, time‑bound process for eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration in the forest. That judgment required the preparation of a division‑wise eviction plan, removal of encroachments, and action against identified government servants. It also prohibited the approval or commencement of new non‑forestry activities or diversion proposals within the Agasthyamalai landscape and directed continued monitoring by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC). Justice Mehta, who drafted the order, held the state government primarily responsible for delaying the receipt of claims under the 2006 Act. He noted that only about 40 gram sabhas had become functional to start the claims process and gave the state a final 30‑day period to form the remaining gram sabhas. The adjudication of claims would be completed within five months from the constitution of the gram sabhas. The court also constituted a special committee chaired by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to oversee the swift disposal of claims and to scrutinise orders issued by competent authorities under the 2006 Act. The Supreme Court directed the CEC to provide an opinion on the government’s view that silk cotton is a ‘minor forest produce’. This is significant for the biosphere, where 3,637.83.2 hectares of the 5,072.64.3 hectares of forest land is under silk cotton cultivation. The court expressed a prima facie view against the state’s claim of historical cultivation of silk cotton, stating that the government affidavits show the promotion and sponsorship of silk cotton as a commercial crop. It observed that planned cultivation of commercial crops is contrary to the concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce and that allowing such crops would change the nature of the forest, leading to large swaths of forest destruction under the guise of silk cotton cultivation. Separately, the court directed the CEC to examine the National Highway Authority of India’s proposal for NH‑744, including the proposed Puliara–Edamon tunnel section, which requires permission for diversion of a limited extent of reserved forest land in the biosphere.