Judgment Intelligence
Interim Order- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 6 November 2026
- Bench
- Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 — Sections 2(c), 2(i), 2(o), 3(1)(c), 3(2) and 6
Interim order; the matter remains pending, part-heard. Category II and III cultivators excluded; Gram Sabhas within 30 days and claims within five months under a Special Committee; State Law Department impleaded and paragraph 66(iii) reassigned; listed on 1 February 2027 (paras 70-72, 81-82).
Source Supreme Court of India, www.sci.gov.in — order dated 6 November 2026 · Court's copy
Key holdings
- Forest rights claims are decided strictly under Section 6, not on present occupation (para 55).
- Category II and III cultivators are excluded from consideration as forest dwellers (paras 64, 70).
- Prima facie, planned commercial cultivation inside forests is not a recognised forest right (para 65).
- Remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days; claims decided within five months of their constitution (para 70).
- Monitoring under paragraph 66(iii) of the 29 May order now rests with the Forests Department (para 82).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Questions before the Court (framed by NyayVidhan)
- Who can claim forest rights in the Megamalai Reserved Forest, and how must the claims be decided?
- Is planned silk cotton cultivation a forest right that justifies staying in the forest?
- What timelines and supervision govern the claims process?
- Should the 29 May 2026 directions be modified on the NHAI and State Law Department applications?
Submissions
For the State's Revenue Department. Silk cotton was grown under tacit State sanction before the areas were Reserved Forests in their present form; the State no longer encourages it and issues no pattas on present occupation; 20 of the 118 Government servants agreed to remove their encroachments; claims should be decided before eviction (paras 6-8, 14).
For the State's Social Justice Department. About 40 Gram Sabhas and some 1,600 claims; two more months sought (paras 21-22).
For the Amicus Curiae. The 1978 settlement and a 2022 Madras High Court judgment cannot be reopened; Category II and III cultivators should be excluded, with a cut-off date and CEC supervision (paras 26-27, 34, 36-37).
Court's Findings
Who may claim, and how
Both definitions require primary residence in, and dependence on, the forest; an other traditional forest dweller needs three generations of twenty-five years before 13 December 2005 (paras 47-48). Claims are decided strictly under Section 6, not on present occupation, and non-qualifiers are liable to removal in accordance with law (para 55). The critical tiger habitat has primacy over encroaching claims (para 56). Cultivators with only temporary residence (Category II) or living outside the forest boundary (Category III) cannot qualify on cultivation alone (para 64).
Silk cotton, a commercial crop
No material shows cultivated silk cotton recognised as minor forest produce; the affidavits show promoted cultivation of a commercial crop, not traditional collection under Section 3(1)(c) (paras 59-60). Such cultivation inside forests is, prima facie, impermissible, and the State's claim that it justifies the cultivators' presence is wholly unacceptable (para 65). As 2,767 outside residents grow it, the CEC must examine financing or facilitation and give its own opinion (paras 66-67).
Deadlines and a Special Committee
The State is primarily responsible for the delay; Gram Sabhas had not been constituted before the Court took cognizance. As a last opportunity it has 30 days to form the rest, and claims must be concluded within five months of their constitution (para 70(ii)). A Special Committee headed by Justice B. R. Gavai, former Chief Justice of India, will scrutinise orders on claims, supervise disposal and report in a sealed cover, at the State's cost (para 70(iii), (v)).
The two applications
NHAI asked to have its NH-744 forest-diversion proposal processed despite paragraph 66(vi) of the 29 May order; the CEC must respond before the next hearing, keeping Section 3(2) in view (paras 73-77). The State Law Department was impleaded, and its paragraph 66(iii) duty to monitor encroachment cases now rests with the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (paras 78, 81-82).
Legal Principle
NyayVidhan's view · Practice note
Why It Matters
For anyone advising forest occupants, the threshold is primary residence in, and dependence on, the forest: cultivation by people with temporary residence or living outside does not qualify, and claims are tested only through the Gram Sabha and the Sub-Divisional and District Level Committees (paras 55, 64). The order also shows the Court fixing a last opportunity and outer time limits once it finds the State responsible for delay, with a court-appointed committee to supervise (para 70). Officers should note that the status reports under paragraph 66(iii) of the 29 May order now come from the Forests Department, said to hold the relevant records (paras 80, 82).
Editorial comment by the NyayVidhan Editorial Desk. It is not part of the Court's judgment and is not legal advice.
Precedents Relied Upon
- Orissa Mining Corpn. Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment & Forests (2013) 6 SCC 476
On the scope and object of the Forest Rights Act and the forest rights it recognises in forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers (paras 49-51 and 54-56 of that judgment quoted), and on the Section 6 mechanism of the Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee, District Level Committee and State Level Monitoring Committee (paras 59-60 quoted). The Court said these observations provide the context in which the Act is read.