The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 was enacted to undo a historical injustice — the non-recognition of rights of communities who actually live in and depend on forests. In A. John Kennedy v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2026 INSC 1204, by order of 6 November 2026 in continuing, part-heard proceedings, the Supreme Court confronted the statute’s misuse from the other direction: claims built on commercial silk cotton cultivation inside reserved forests of the Megamalai region by persons with no real residence in or dependence on the forest. The Court held the Act’s benefit confined to those who satisfy its definitions, excluded two categories of claimants outright, and put the State’s delayed claims machinery on a tight clock.
How the issue arose
The order is a sequel to the Court’s direction of 29 May 2026 in the same proceedings, which set in motion a structured process of eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration in the Agasthyamalai forest landscape and barred new non-forestry activity there. When the process reached the Megamalai region, applications surfaced raising Forest Rights Act claims by residents and cultivators. The State’s Revenue Department described silk cotton cultivation as historically tolerated and characterised it as minor forest produce, while making clear that no pattas would issue on reserved forest land. The Social Justice Department sought time: the claims process had reached about forty Gram Sabhas, with roughly 1,600 applications in the pipeline. The amicus curiae urged that earlier settlement proceedings and a 2022 Madras High Court decision had concluded many issues, and that claimants in two of the three identified categories deserved exclusion.
The statutory gate: who the Act is for
The Court went back to the definitions. Section 2(c) defines forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and Section 2(o) other traditional forest dwellers; both are anchored in genuine residence in forests and dependence on them for bona fide livelihood needs, and claims are processed through the Gram Sabha machinery of Section 6. Against that gate, the Court sorted the Megamalai claimants:
Category I
Persons whose claims rest on residence and dependence of the statutory kind — their claims go to the Gram Sabhas for adjudication on the Court’s timeline.
Category II
Persons with only temporary residence in the forest — excluded. Cultivation alone cannot convert a temporary presence into the status the Act demands.
Category III
Persons living outside the forest who cultivate inside it — excluded, with the Court noting that the 2,767 cultivators in this class likely required outside financing or facilitation, a matter now referred for investigation.
The silk cotton holding
The centrepiece of the order is its treatment of “minor forest produce” under Section 2(i). The definition contemplates produce of a naturally occurring character — what the forest itself yields and dwellers traditionally collect. Silk cotton raised as a planned commercial crop does not fit that character, and the State had not shown it was traditionally collected in the region. Commercial cultivation inside forests, the Court observed, is prima facie impermissible: the Act recognises a relationship of dependence on the forest, not a licence to convert forest land into plantation. For claimants and authorities alike, the distinction now has a clear edge — collection of what occurs naturally may found a right; organised cropping for the market cannot.
The directions
- Exclusion: Categories II and III stand excluded from consideration under the Act.
- Timelines: the State must constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days, and claims must be adjudicated within five months — the Court squarely attributed the delay so far to the State.
- Supervision: a Special Committee stands constituted, headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, to oversee the exercise.
- Investigation: the Central Empowered Committee is to give its opinion on the status of silk cotton as a minor forest produce, and the question of who finances or facilitates the cultivation by outsiders is marked for its deeper examination.
- Infrastructure: the CEC is to consider the NHAI’s application on the proposal relating to NH-744, including the proposed Puliara–Edamon tunnel section.
- Continuation: the State Law Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, is impleaded as a party respondent; the case is to be listed as a part-heard matter and comes up on 1 February 2027 for the interim status report.
The wider significance
The order will matter well beyond Tamil Nadu. First, it reads the Forest Rights Act as a recognition statute, not a regularisation scheme: the claims process cannot be used to launder encroachment into entitlement. Second, it confirms that courts supervising forest restoration can sort claimants into categories at the threshold, leaving only genuine claims to the statutory machinery — a model likely to be followed wherever large-scale claims coincide with eviction proceedings. Third, by fixing responsibility for delay on the State and imposing timelines, it protects the genuine dweller as firmly as it excludes the commercial cultivator: the two halves of the order are deliberately symmetrical. Landowners, claimants and authorities dealing with forest-fringe land should read their position against the three categories the Court has now drawn.
Practice note: A Forest Rights Act claim should be documented like the status case it is: proof of residence in the forest, its duration and continuity, and dependence for bona fide livelihood — ration and electoral records, school and revenue entries, and Gram Sabha material. Evidence of cultivation, however extensive, proves occupation at best; after this order, it cannot substitute for the definitional requirements, and claims resting on cultivation alone invite summary exclusion.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who can claim rights under the Forest Rights Act?
Two classes: forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes, and other traditional forest dwellers — both defined by genuine residence in and dependence on forests for bona fide livelihood needs. The Court held that persons with only temporary residence, or living outside the forest altogether, cannot qualify merely because they cultivate land inside it. Cultivation is evidence of occupation, not a substitute for the statutory status.
Why is silk cotton not 'minor forest produce'?
Minor forest produce under Section 2(i) takes its colour from produce of a naturally occurring character — the things forest dwellers traditionally collect. Silk cotton raised as a planned commercial crop is the product of deliberate plantation, and the State could not show it was traditionally collected in the region. A right to collect what the forest yields is not a right to farm the forest commercially.
What happens to the pending claims in the region?
The Court directed the State to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas within thirty days and to complete adjudication of claims within five months thereafter, having found the State primarily responsible for the delay. A Special Committee headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, will supervise the exercise, and the part-heard matter is listed on 1 February 2027 for an interim status report.
Does the order evict genuine forest dwellers?
No. The exclusions operate against claimants who do not meet the statutory definitions — temporary residents and outsiders. Claims of those who do meet them remain to be adjudicated through the Gram Sabha process the Court has expedited, and the structured eviction and rehabilitation framework flows from the earlier orders in the same proceedings, under continuing judicial supervision.