Supreme Court: planting a commercial crop in a forest is not a right under the Forest Rights Act

The Supreme Court has ruled that planned cultivation of a commercial crop is not a forest right under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and cannot be used to justify staying on forest land. In an order dated Friday, November 6, 2026, Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta applied the principle to silk cotton farming in the Megamalai forests of Tamil Nadu, part of the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve.

The court excluded two of the three groups of occupants identified by the state from any claim as forest dwellers and appointed a Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B R Gavai to scrutinise the claims that remain.

What the court held

The order, in A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (Civil Appeal Nos. 6395-6397 of 2025, 2026 INSC 1204), turned on the Act’s wording. Section 3(1)(c) recognises a right to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce, and the Act defines such produce as something naturally occurring. The bench said “the concept of planned cultivation of commercial crop is totally contrary to” that idea, and that the material before it did not show silk cotton being traditionally collected as minor forest produce.

Tamil Nadu had argued that silk cotton was government-encouraged and could be treated as minor forest produce, and that cultivation justified the occupants’ presence. The court called that argument unacceptable. It noted that the state’s own affidavit described silk cotton as a planned plantation introduced from the 1930s, and found no notification recognising the cultivated crop as minor forest produce.

On the larger question, the court said the sanctity of the critical tiger habitat has to be given primacy over any claim that encroaches on forest area. It added that planned or promoted cultivation of a commercial crop inside forest areas is “completely impermissible”, and that the nature of a forest is bound to change when such crops are grown in it.

Who is excluded

The state’s affidavit of September 6, 2026, listed 4,594 occupants on 5,072.64 hectares, of which 3,637.83 hectares are under silk cotton. It sorted them into three categories: permanent residents cultivating inside the forest (1,595 people), temporary residents (232) and people living outside the forest altogether (2,767).

Under Sections 2(c) and 2(o), a Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribe or Other Traditional Forest Dweller must actually reside in the forest and depend on it for livelihood; an Other Traditional Forest Dweller must also show three generations, or 75 years, of residence before December 13, 2005. The court held that people in the second and third categories “cannot, on the basis of such cultivation alone, qualify” and ordered them excluded from consideration under the Act. That removes 2,999 people from the process. The order does not exclude the 1,595 permanent residents in the first category.

The court also doubted the state’s statement that no commercial enterprise financed or directed the farming. It said the figure of 2,767 cultivators living outside the forest sat badly with that claim, since they could hardly cultivate without financing or facilitation. It sent that question to the Central Empowered Committee, which has been asked to give its opinion on whether silk cotton can be classed as minor forest produce at all.

How the case got here

The appeals follow the court’s order of May 29, 2026, which directed time-bound eviction, rehabilitation and ecological restoration of the Agasthyamalai landscape, barred new non-forestry activity or diversion proposals there and kept the Central Empowered Committee monitoring the work. On August 19, 2026, the court asked the state for details of silk cotton cultivation, pattas granted, action against 118 government servants identified as encroachers and the status of forest rights claims.

The state also drew criticism on the process itself. The court found it primarily responsible for delay in forming gram sabhas, the first tier of the claims mechanism under Section 6 of the Act, which then passes claims to sub-divisional and district level committees. Roughly 40 gram sabhas have been formed and about 1,600 claims received, with about one month of a three-month claims period elapsed, according to the order. The amicus curiae had opposed reopening matters settled in the 1978 settlement proceedings and asked for non-resident cultivators to be excluded, and the court accepted the exclusion.

What the court ordered

• Category II and III excluded: these occupants are out of consideration as forest dwellers under the Act.
• 30 days for gram sabhas: Tamil Nadu has a last opportunity of 30 days to constitute the remaining gram sabhas, and claims must be decided within five months after that.
• Special Committee: headed by Justice Gavai (retired) and assisted by an officer of the Central Empowered Committee and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, it will scrutinise the decisions and report in a sealed cover. The state must file monthly progress reports, and scrutiny must end within two months of the outer limit for adjudication.
• Nodal officer and monitoring: the Joint Secretary (Administration) is the nodal officer, and an application by the state Law Department moved monitoring of one part of the May order to the Environment, Climate Change and Forests Department, acting through the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.

A tunnel on NH-744

The order also dealt with an application from the National Highways Authority of India for the Puliara-Edamon tunnel section of NH-744, which would need a limited extent of Reserved Forest. NHAI had asked to be impleaded and to modify a paragraph of the May 29 order. The court directed the Central Empowered Committee to examine the application, with the Act’s Section 3(2) in view, and respond before the next hearing. It decided nothing on the tunnel itself.

Why it matters

The ruling sets out where the Forest Rights Act’s protection ends. The Act is meant to recognise the rights of people who have lived in and drawn their living from forests for generations, and this order says that residence and dependence, not a crop in the ground, decide who is a forest dweller. For tiger reserves and other protected forests, it gives states and forest officials a Supreme Court reading to cite when occupation by non-resident cultivators is claimed as a statutory right.

For the people of Megamalai, the practical effect is split. Permanent residents are not excluded, and their claims now run to a fixed timetable under court-appointed oversight. The 2,999 people who live outside it or only temporarily in it lose the route of an FRA claim.

What happens next

Tamil Nadu has 30 days from the order to form the remaining gram sabhas, and must then file monthly progress reports. The Central Empowered Committee must give its opinion on silk cotton and on the NHAI application. The matter, which remains part-heard, is listed on February 1, 2027 for an interim status report.