The Supreme Court appointed former CJI Bhushan R Gavai to head a committee examining forest rights claims and orders passed under the Forest Rights Act in Tamil Nadu’s Agasthyamalai landscape.
The court gave Tamil Nadu 30 days to constitute remaining Gram Sabhas and five months thereafter to invite and adjudicate claims, flagging years of government inaction.
The bench rejected the state’s argument on silk cotton cultivation as a traditional forest produce and ruled that commercial cultivation alone cannot justify occupation of reserved forest land.
The Supreme Court has appointed former Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai to head a special committee examining orders passed by authorities in Tamil Nadu under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, in the Agasthyamalai landscape.
The court also criticised the state government for failing to initiate the statutory process to identify and adjudicate claims of forest dwellers in the ecologically sensitive region for several years.
The order was passed on Friday by a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The committee will comprise Justice Gavai, an officer of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and Tamil Nadu’s principal chief conservator of forests.
It will oversee the determination of claims by Forest-Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD), scrutinise orders passed by competent authorities under the law and submit its findings to the court in a sealed cover.
Court Sets Timelines For Claims
The bench directed Tamil Nadu to complete the constitution of the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days. The state must then complete the process of inviting and adjudicating claims through the statutory three-tier mechanism within five months of the Gram Sabhas being constituted.
The committee will have two months after the expiry of this deadline to complete its scrutiny. It can also issue directions to the authorities for the expeditious disposal of claims. The state government has been asked to submit monthly progress reports to the committee.
SC Flags Years Of Inaction
The bench traced the delay to years of inaction by the state government.
An interim stay imposed by the Madras High Court had been lifted by the Supreme Court in 2016. However, the bench observed that the process under Section 6 of the Forest Rights Act was not initiated for several years thereafter.
“Apparently thus, the process under Section 6 was never initiated for years even after the lifting of the stay and seems to have been triggered only after this Court took suo motu cognizance of the prevailing situation,” the bench observed.
The court said the state appeared to have acted only after it ordered the removal of encroachments from the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and other reserved forests in the Agasthyamalai Biosphere.
“It is clear that the State Government is primarily responsible for the delay in the process of receiving, identifying and adjudicating the claims under the FRA, 2006. Before this Court took cognizance of the encroachments in the forest area, even the Gram Sabhas had not been constituted,” the bench said.
Giving the state government what it described as a “last opportunity”, the court directed it to complete the exercise within the prescribed timelines.
Senior counsel Jaideep Gupta appeared for the state government, while senior advocate Sriram Panchu represented the state's Department of Social Justice.
Forest Rights Claims And Exclusions
The case stems from large-scale encroachments in the Agasthyamalai landscape.
In its May 29 judgment, the Supreme Court had directed a structured, time-bound process for eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration. The subsequent proceedings concerned competing claims over whether people living in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region could seek protection under the Forest Rights Act.
Tamil Nadu argued that claims under the law had to be examined before any eviction. However, the court accepted submissions by amicus curiae and senior advocate K Parmeshwar that statutory protection could not be extended to everyone occupying or cultivating forest land.
The bench identified two categories of people who would be excluded from consideration under the law: those cultivating forest land while maintaining only temporary residence there, and those living outside forest boundaries but cultivating land within them.
According to the state government's affidavit, 4,594 occupants were identified across 5,072.64 hectares. Of these, 2,643 were engaged in silk cotton cultivation over 3,637.83 hectares.
The affidavit also identified 1,595 people who were permanently residing in the forest and cultivating land, 232 who had temporary residence while cultivating land, and 2,767 who lived outside the forest boundary but cultivated land within it.
The court held that the latter two categories could not qualify as FDST or OTFD merely on the basis of cultivation. To qualify as an OTFD, a person must have resided in and depended on forest land for at least three generations, or 75 years, before December 13, 2005.
Supreme Court Rejects Silk Cotton Argument
The bench also rejected the state government's argument that silk cotton cultivation should be recognised as a traditional minor forest produce protected under the Forest Rights Act.
Tamil Nadu had cited historical cultivation practices and agricultural records to support its position. However, the court noted that the state had not produced any specific notification recognising silk cotton as minor forest produce under the Act or any other forest law.
Distinguishing naturally occurring forest produce from commercial cultivation, the bench observed, “The concept of planned cultivation of commercial crop is totally contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce.”
It further held that commercial crop cultivation could not be recognised as a forest right to justify continued occupation of reserved forest land.
The court asked the CEC to examine the state's claim regarding silk cotton cultivation and investigate farming by people living outside the forest boundary. The committee will also examine whether others were financing or facilitating such cultivation.
The matter will next be heard on February 1, 2027, when the Supreme Court will consider an interim status report.
