Forest Rights Act: Who can claim forest land after Supreme Court ruling?

The Supreme Court has distinguished traditional forest-based livelihood from commercial cultivation, clarifying who can claim forest rights and what protections available against eviction

The Supreme Court, in its November 6 ruling in A John Kennedy and Others. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, examined whether silk cotton cultivation in Tamil Nadu’s Megamalai forests could come under the ambit of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. The court observed that planned commercial cultivation cannot, by itself, justify a claim to occupy forest land under the Act.

 

The court further excluded two categories of cultivators--those residing temporarily inside the forest and those who are living outside its boundaries to fix their status as forest dwellers under the Act. It formed a special committee to be headed by former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai. He is authorised to scrutinise decisions taken on forest rights claims.

 

 

What is the Forest Rights Act, and who can claim rights over forest land?

 

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, was enacted to undo the injustice against tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers. Their customary rights over forest land were severely violated by colonial laws. FRA formally recognised their rights over their inhabited areas.

 

The Forest Act recognises two categories of beneficiaries. The first includes first-dwelling Scheduled TRibes (FDST). They primarily reside in forests and rely on them to earn their livelihood. The second category includes Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OFTD), who must establish their dependence on the forest land. The claim requires them to prove at least three generations surviving here or for 75 years, before December 13 2005.

 

“There is an apparent conflict between the Forest Rights Act 2006, enacted to recognise and protect resource management and ownership rights for local tribes in contrast with the 2023 amendment of the Forest Conservation Act,” said Amit Kapur, Senior Partner (Head - Northern Region & Chair - Disputes), Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas.

 

Which narrows down the definition of forest land and grants an exemption for linear and commercial projects from statutory oversight, Kapur further added.

 

Section 4(3) of the Act mandates that mere occupation or cultivation does not automatically establish eligibility. The Act further recognises individual and community rights. This comprises habitation, self-cultivation for livelihood, grazing rights, access to water bodies and collection of minor forest produce. These rights are heritable in nature and cannot be sold or transferred.

 

Can forest dwellers cultivate land for their livelihood under the Act?

 

Yes, Section 3(1)(a) of the FRA talks about the rights conferred on eligible forest dwellers. It recognises their rights on forest land to live, for habitation and self-cultivation for livelihood. Section 3(1)(c) separately recognises the right to collect, use and sell minor forest produce traditionally collected by these communities.

 

“The Rules define bona fide livelihood needs to include meeting family livelihood requirements and selling surplus produce. They also recognise ancillary activities, including rotational fallows, tree crops, cattle-keeping and post-harvest storage,” said Rohit Jain, Managing Partner, Singhania & Co.

 

The dividing line is whether cultivation forms part of the claimant’s traditional, bona fide livelihood and recognised occupation, or constitutes planned, promoted or externally financed commercial agriculture that alters the forest’s character, Jain further added.

 

Why did the Supreme Court reject commercial silk cotton cultivation as a forest right?

 

The dispute concerned silk cotton cultivation in the Megamalai forest region. Tamil Nadu argued that the crop had been cultivated historically and could be classified as minor forest produce mentioned in the Act.

“In the Megamalai case, the Supreme Court took a prima facie view against treating planned commercial silk-cotton cultivation as a forest right,” said Alay Razvi, Managing Partner, Accord Juris.

 

Authorities must distinguish protected livelihood activity from commercial occupation by examining eligibility, historical occupation, the nature of cultivation and the statutory right asserted, rather than using crop choice or sales as the sole test, Razvi further added.

 

How are genuine forest rights claims verified, and can claimants be evicted?

 

"The Act establishes a three-tier mechanism for verification of forest rights claims, beginning with the Gram Sabha, followed by the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the District Level Committee," said  Nihal Bhardwaj, Counsel, SKV Law Offices. The process requires examination of historical records, evidence of occupation and traditional dependence on forest resources.

 

Importantly, the legislation provides safeguards against arbitrary rejection and eviction. Claimants have access to statutory remedies, and Section 4(5) prohibits the eviction of eligible forest dwellers until the recognition and verification process is completed, Bhardwaj further added.

 

The Supreme Court also criticised the Tamil Nadu government for delaying this process and directed it to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days and complete the claims process within five months of their constitution.

 

What does the ruling mean for tribal communities and other forest dwellers?

 

The ruling further strengthens the forest rights. It establishes dependence on statutory eligibility and not simply on the fact of how long someone has cultivated the land.

 

“The Supreme Court’s order in A. John Kennedy and Ors, may guide other states where commercial cultivation is the sole basis for asserting a right to occupy forest land,” said Adv. Anusha Sinha, SC.

 

The fact that a crop is sold or is considered non-traditional is insufficient, by itself, to reject a claim for ‘self-cultivation for livelihood’, Sinha further added.