The Supreme Court has appointed a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai to supervise and scrutinise forest-rights claims in proceedings concerning encroachments in Tamil Nadu’s Megamalai region. It has set a final deadline for forming the remaining Gram Sabhas and excluded two categories of cultivators identified in the State’s affidavit from consideration under the Forest Rights Act.
New Delhi: Tamil Nadu has been given one last chance of 30 days to complete the formation of its remaining Gram Sabhas. The Supreme Court has ordered a supervised, time-bound examination of claims under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, while continuing its scrutiny of encroachments and commercial cultivation in protected forest areas [A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others].
The reportable order was passed on November 6, 2026, by Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta. The matter remains part-heard and is listed for February 1, 2027 for an interim status report. The order does not finally decide each individual claimant’s entitlement.
The competing claims before the Court
Tamil Nadu’s counsel argued that genuine statutory rights must be determined before eviction. They said the earlier forest-settlement and High Court proceedings could not automatically settle every claim across the wider region. The State reported that around 40 Gram Sabhas had become functional and approximately 1,600 applications had been received.
The amicus curiae opposed reopening matters already examined in earlier proceedings and urged strict verification of residence, dependence on forests and the required historical period. The Court criticised the State’s prolonged inaction after the earlier stay on implementation of the Act was lifted.
The bench held that claims must be decided through Section 6 of the Act and the applicable Rules. Present occupation alone is insufficient. For other traditional forest dwellers, the statutory requirement includes three generations (75 years) of primary residence and forest dependence before December 13, 2005.
Two categories excluded; silk-cotton question requires further examination
The State’s affidavit divided occupants into permanent forest residents who cultivate, cultivators with temporary residence, and cultivators residing outside the forest boundary. Paragraph 70(i) excludes the latter two categories from consideration as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers in this exercise.
The Court reasoned that cultivation alone does not satisfy the requirement of primarily residing in and depending on the forest. Its directions concern the categories identified in the State’s affidavit; the order does not grant automatic recognition to everyone in the remaining category.
The bench also questioned the State’s justification of silk-cotton cultivation as minor forest produce. It distinguished traditional collection from planned commercial cultivation. While expressing a prima facie view against recognition of such commercial cultivation as a forest right, it directed the CEC to give its opinion on silk cotton’s status without being prejudiced by the Court’s observations.
Thirty days to form remaining Gram Sabhas
In paragraph 70, the Court granted Tamil Nadu a last opportunity of 30 days to complete formation of the remaining Gram Sabhas. After their constitution, receipt of the remaining claims and adjudication through the statutory three-tier mechanism must conclude strictly within five months.
The special committee will include an officer of the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and Tamil Nadu’s Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force. Its chairperson may identify the CEC officer who will assist it.
The committee must scrutinise orders passed by the competent Forest Rights Act authorities and submit its report to the Supreme Court in a sealed cover. It will also supervise expeditious disposal of claims, receive monthly progress reports from the State, and endeavour to complete scrutiny within two months after the Court’s prescribed outer limit for the claims exercise.
No clearance for the proposed highway project
NHAI sought permission for statutory processing of a proposal concerning NH-744, including the Puliara–Edamon tunnel section. The Court directed the CEC to respond before the next hearing. It did not grant construction approval or the requested forest-diversion clearance.
The Court separately shifted responsibility for monitoring pending encroachment-related litigation from the State Law Department to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and subordinate authorities.
Case: A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Case Nos.: Civil Appeal Nos.6395–6397/2025, with contempt proceedings, Diary No.25067/2018 in W.P.(C) No.202/1995
Citation: 2026 INSC 1204
Bench: Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta
Date: November 6, 2026
Status: Continuing, part-heard proceedings; further directions issued; interim status report listed for February 1, 2027.