This is an interim order in continuing, part-heard proceedings. It does not finally decide any individual claimant's entitlement under the Forest Rights Act, 2006; those claims remain to be adjudicated through the section 6 three-tier mechanism. The Court's view that planned commercial-crop cultivation is impermissible in forest areas is recorded as a prima facie view, and the Central Empowered Committee is yet to give its opinion on silk cotton as minor forest produce.
- Case
- A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Citation
- 2026 INSC 1204
- Bench
- Vikram Nath; Sandeep Mehta
- Judgment by
- Sandeep Mehta
- Case numbers
- Civil Appeal Nos. 6395-6397 of 2025; Contempt Petition (C) Diary No. 25067 of 2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995
- Outcome
- Reportable order in continuing, part-heard proceedings: directions issued on the determination of Forest Rights Act claims in the Megamalai region, a Special Committee constituted, and the matter listed on 1 February 2027 for an interim status report. No individual claimant's entitlement under the Act is finally decided.
The decision
The Supreme Court has held that cultivating a commercial crop inside a forest cannot be recognised as a forest right under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and has excluded two classes of Megamalai cultivators from consideration under the Act. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the reportable order on 6 November 2026 in A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others.
The Court constituted a Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai to scrutinise the claims, gave the State 30 days to complete the remaining Gram Sabhas, and directed adjudication within five months thereafter. The matter returns on 1 February 2027.
Background: the May 2026 directions and the claims that followed
By its judgment of 29 May 2026, the Court had mandated a division-wise eviction plan, removal of encroachments, action against identified government servants, and a bar on new non-forestry activities or diversions within the Agasthyamalai landscape. Applications were then filed raising the applicability of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 for persons residing in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region.
By an order of 19 August 2026, the Court directed the State to respond on silk cotton cultivation, the pattas said to have been granted by the District Collector, action against 118 government servants identified as encroachers, and the status of claims. The State said around 40 Gram Sabhas had been constituted, about 1,600 claims received, and 20 of the 118 government servants had voluntarily agreed to remove their encroachments.
The issue before the Court
Two questions were before the Court. First, whether persons occupying or cultivating land in the Megamalai region could claim protection as forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes or other traditional forest dwellers under the 2006 Act, and whether eviction should wait for their claims to be decided. Second, whether the cultivation of silk cotton in the Reserved Forest could itself be a forest right — the State's case being that silk cotton is a minor forest produce traditionally collected, so its cultivation justified the cultivators' presence.
The State submitted that the statutory process under section 6 of the Act had to run its course before eviction, and that the Madras High Court's earlier judgment was in personam and concerned only limited villages, while the present exercise covers 98 habitations and villages. The amicus, K. Parmeshwar, submitted the claims were already concluded: in the 1978 settlement proceedings, 168 claims were received and one allowed, and the present claimants had made no claim then.
The rule: who the Act protects, and how claims are decided
The Court set out the scheme of the 2006 Act, drawing on its decision in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. v. Ministry of Environment and Forests. Section 2(c) defines forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes as members or communities of Scheduled Tribes who primarily reside in and depend on forest land for bona fide needs. Section 2(o) defines an other traditional forest dweller as a member or community who has for at least three generations — 75 years — before 13 December 2005 primarily resided in and depended on forest land for bona fide livelihood needs.
Section 3(1) lists the rights recognised, including the right to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce traditionally collected under clause (c). Claims are decided through the three-tier mechanism in section 6 — Gram Sabha, Sub-Divisional Level Committee, District Level Committee — whose decision is final and binding; claims must be determined strictly through this mechanism, not on present occupation alone.
The reasoning: silk cotton is a commercial crop, not a forest right
The Court rejected the State's silk cotton case. The State had relied on silk cotton's classification as a minor forest product on the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University's Agritech portal and on its cultivation in the area since the 1930s, at one time with the authorities' tacit sanction. The Court held that no notification or material had been placed before it showing that silk cotton, as a cultivated crop, has been recognised as minor forest produce under the 2006 Act or any other forest law.
The distinction the Court drew was between collection and cultivation. Section 3(1)(c) protects the right to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce that has been traditionally collected. What the material showed was sponsored cultivation of silk cotton as a commercial crop — a planned plantation introduced from the 1930s — rather than traditional collection of parts of the tree. A planned commercial crop is, in the Court's words, "totally contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce". The Court recorded its prima facie view that planned or promoted cultivation of a commercial crop inside forest areas is completely impermissible, since no such right is recognised under the Act.
In the Megamalai Forest Range, 4,594 persons occupy 5,072.64.3 hectares, of which 3,637.83.2 hectares are under silk cotton: 1,595 permanent residents, 232 with temporary residence, and 2,767 residing outside the forest boundary. Since sections 2(c) and 2(o) require a claimant to primarily reside in the forest, the Court held that the second and third categories cannot, on the basis of such cultivation alone, qualify under the Act, and must be excluded from consideration.
The outcome: a Gavai-led committee and a 30-day deadline
The Court issued seven directions. First, persons in the second and third categories are excluded from consideration under the 2006 Act. Second, the State — held primarily responsible for the delay, since not even the Gram Sabhas had been constituted before the Court took cognizance — gets a last opportunity of 30 days to complete the remaining Gram Sabhas; claims must then be adjudicated strictly within five months of their constitution.
Third, a Special Committee is constituted, headed by former Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and assisted by an officer of the Central Empowered Committee and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Head of Forest Force, Tamil Nadu. It will scrutinise the orders passed under the 2006 Act, report in a sealed cover, and supervise expeditious disposal. Its chairperson gets an honorarium of Rs 25,00,000 per instalment over four instalments, paid by the State.
The Court also directed the Central Empowered Committee to consider the National Highways Authority of India's NH-744 proposal, including the Puliara–Edamon tunnel section, and respond before the next date. The State Law Department's impleadment was allowed, and the responsibility for monitoring encroachment-related proceedings was shifted from it to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department. The matter will be listed again on 1 February 2027 for an interim status report, as a part-heard matter. The order does not finally decide any individual claimant's entitlement under the 2006 Act.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
This order is a study in how the Court reads a beneficial statute against its own text. The Forest Rights Act was enacted to correct a historical injustice — the non-recording of forest dwellers' rights — but the Court insists that the benefit runs only to those who satisfy the statutory definitions. Two tests do the work: "primarily reside in" the forest, and "traditionally collected" minor forest produce. Apply both to the three categories in the State's table.
Notice also the procedure the Court protects: the three-tier mechanism is not a formality the Court can waive, and its remedy for delay is to supervise the mechanism rather than decide the claims itself. Finally, observe the posture: an interim, part-heard order, not a final adjudication of anyone's forest rights.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Court hold that silk cotton cultivation cannot be a forest right under section 3(1)(c) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and what distinction between collection and cultivation supports that holding?
- On what statutory basis did the Court exclude Category II and Category III cultivators from consideration under the Act, and which definitions do that work?
- What is the composition and mandate of the Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, and what are the two time limits the Court fixed for the Gram Sabhas and for claim adjudication?
