The Supreme Court on Friday appointed former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai to head a special committee that will scrutinise orders passed by authorities in Tamil Nadu under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), even as it came down hard on the state government for its prolonged failure to initiate the statutory process to identify and adjudicate the claims of forest dwellers in the ecologically sensitive Agasthyamalai landscape.
“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 moto cognizance of the prevailing situation,” it said.
Distinguishing between naturally occurring forest produce and commercial cultivation, the bench said the material suggested that silk cotton had been introduced as a planned plantation rather than traditionally collected as minor forest produce. Senior counsel Jaideep Gupta appeared for the state government while senior advocate Sriram Panchu represented the state’s department of social justice. The court also rejected the state’s attempt to justify silk cotton cultivation as a traditional minor forest produce protected under the FRA. It noted that the government had relied on historical cultivation and agricultural records but had failed to produce any specific notification recognising silk cotton as minor forest produce under the Act or any other forest law.
“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. For OTFDs, the law specifically requires residence and dependence for at least three generations, or 75 years, prior to December 13, 2005.
Before this Court took cognizance of the encroachments in the forest area, even the Gram Sabhas had not been constituted,” said the bench, granting the state what it described as a “last opportunity” to complete the exercise. The court said the latter two categories could not qualify as FDST or OTFD merely on the basis of cultivation, since the statutory definitions required claimants to primarily reside in and depend on forest land. “The concept of planned cultivation of commercial crop is totally contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce,” said the bench, adding that commercial crop cultivation could not become a recognised forest right to justify continued occupation of reserved forest land.
