New Delhi: The Supreme Court has excluded cultivators who live outside the forest, or reside there only temporarily, from consideration under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, in the Megamalai area of the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve, and has constituted a Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to supervise the adjudication of forest rights claims.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed the order on 6 November 2026 (2026 INSC 1204), which also holds, prima facie, that planned cultivation of a commercial crop such as silk cotton cannot be a forest right.
The order was passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 6395-6397 of 2025 (A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others), in continuation of the Court’s order of 29 May 2026 directing a time-bound process of eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration in the forest areas. Applications were then filed on the implementation of the FRA, 2006 for persons residing in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region, and on 19 August 2026 the Court asked the State to respond on silk cotton cultivation, the grant of pattas and the 118 Government servants identified as encroachers.
The State’s Revenue Department submitted that silk cotton had been cultivated for long under the tacit sanction of the authorities and treated as minor forest produce and that no pattas have been issued by the Collector for the Reserved Forest lands. It added that 20 of the 118 Government servants have agreed to remove their encroachments. The Social Justice Department submitted that people cannot be treated as encroachers without first determining their claims, and that around 40 Gram Sabhas had been constituted and about 1,600 claims received.
The Amicus Curiae, Shri K. Parmeshwar, submitted that the FRA exercise cannot reopen what was concluded by the Madras High Court’s judgment of 17 March 2022, and that mere residence or cultivation in a Reserved Forest does not establish a right.
The Court held that the claims of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers must be determined strictly under Section 6 of the FRA, 2006 and its Rules, and not merely on present occupation, and that persons who do not meet the requirements of Sections 2(c) and 2(o) are liable to be removed in accordance with law. It said that the sanctity of the critical tiger habitat must be given primacy over any claim that encroaches on the forest area, and observed that the State was primarily responsible for the delay.
On silk cotton, the Court noted that the State had relied on it as minor forest produce under Section 2(i) of the FRA, but that no notification or material showed that silk cotton as a cultivated crop is minor forest produce, and that the material showed promotion of sponsored cultivation as a commercial crop and not traditional collection. It held that planned cultivation of a commercial crop is “totally contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce”, and took the prima facie view that such cultivation is impermissible and cannot justify presence in the forest.
The State’s own affidavit shows that three categories of persons occupy about 5,072 hectares of forest land, with about 3,637 hectares under silk cotton: 1,595 persons permanently residing in the forest, 232 cultivating with temporary residence, and 2,767 residing outside the forest boundary. The Court held that Category II and Category III, being persons who cultivate with only temporary residence or reside outside the forest, cannot qualify as forest dwellers on the basis of cultivation alone and are excluded from consideration under the FRA.
The Court found that the State’s statement that no large commercial enterprise was financing the cultivation is contradicted by its own table, since persons living outside the forest cannot cultivate crops inside it without financing or facilitation by others. It asked the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine this and to give its opinion on whether silk cotton is minor forest produce.
As directions, the Court gave the State a last opportunity of 30 days to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas, with the three-tier adjudication of claims to be concluded strictly within five months of their constitution. It constituted a Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, assisted by an officer of the CEC and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, to scrutinise the orders on claims, supervise their disposal and report to the Court in a sealed cover, with an honorarium of ₹25 lakh in four instalments payable by the State. It is to endeavour to conclude its scrutiny within two months of the outer limit for the claims process.
The Court also dealt with two applications. It directed the CEC to consider the National Highways Authority of India’s application, relating to a diversion proposal for the Puliara–Edamon tunnel section on NH-744, and to file its response before the next hearing. It allowed the State Law Department’s impleadment application and modified paragraph 66(iii) of the 29 May order, so that the duty to monitor encroachment proceedings now lies with the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department. The matter is listed again on 1 February 2027 for an interim status report as a part-heard matter.
Appearances: For the State of Tamil Nadu (Revenue Department): Shri Jaideep Gupta, Senior Advocate. For the Department of Social Justice: Shri Sriram Panchu, Senior Advocate. Amicus Curiae: Shri K. Parmeshwar. For NHAI: Shri K.M. Nataraj, Additional Solicitor General. For the State Law Department: Ms. Vrinda Bhandari, Advocate.
Case Title: A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 6395-6397 of 2025, with Contempt Petition (C) (Diary No. 25067 of 2018) in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
