Commercial Silk Cotton Cultivation Cannot Be Recognised as a Forest Right Under FRA

The Supreme Court has observed that the planned cultivation of silk cotton as a commercial crop cannot, by itself, be treated as a forest right to justify a person’s occupation or continued presence in a forest area. The Court noted that no specific notification or other material had been placed before it to establish that silk cotton, as a cultivated crop, had been recognised as minor forest produce under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 (FRA), or any other forest law.

The observations were made in A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others (2026 INSC 1204), while examining claims under the FRA concerning persons residing in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region of Tamil Nadu. The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta also directed the constitution of a committee headed by former Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai to scrutinise forest rights claims in the region.

Background of the Dispute

The proceedings arose from concerns over encroachments and activities in forest areas of Tamil Nadu. In an earlier order dated May 29, 2026, the Supreme Court had directed the removal of encroachments, rehabilitation of affected persons and ecological restoration in the Agasthyamalai landscape.

The subsequent applications raised questions about the applicability of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, to persons residing in or cultivating land in the Megamalai region. The State defended the cultivation of silk cotton by relying on historical records and material from the Tamil Nadu Agricultural University's Agritech portal, claiming that it qualified as minor forest produce.

Court Examines Whether Silk Cotton Qualifies as Minor Forest Produce

The central question before the Court was whether the cultivation of silk cotton could be treated as a recognised forest right under the FRA.

Section 2(i) of the Act defines minor forest produce to include non-timber forest produce of plant origin, such as bamboo, honey, wax, medicinal plants, roots and tubers. Further, Section 3(1)(c) recognises the right of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of minor forest produce that has been traditionally collected within or outside village boundaries.

The Court found that the material placed by the State did not establish that silk cotton, as a cultivated crop, had been recognised as minor forest produce under the Act or any other forest law. It also noted that the material did not demonstrate that silk cotton was traditionally collected as minor forest produce.

Instead, the State’s affidavits indicated that silk cotton cultivation had been promoted as a commercial activity. The Court distinguished between the traditional collection of forest produce and planned cultivation of a commercial crop.

In this regard, the Bench observed:

“The concept of planned cultivation of commercial crop is totally contrary to the very concept of a naturally occurring minor forest produce.”

The Court further expressed concern that allowing commercial crops to be cultivated in forest areas could change the very nature of forests.

It clarified that the planned or promoted cultivation of a commercial crop could not be recognised as a forest right to justify occupation or continued presence within a forest area. The Bench stated that no such right was recognised under the FRA.

However, the Court described this as its prima facie view. It separately directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to examine the State’s claim that silk cotton qualified as minor forest produce and submit its opinion.

Persons Residing Outside Forest Areas Cannot Claim Rights Through Cultivation Alone

The Court also examined the State’s classification of 4,594 persons occupying forest land into three categories.

Category I consisted of 1,595 persons permanently residing in the forest area and cultivating land. Category II included 232 persons who cultivated land but had only temporary residence in the forest. Category III consisted of 2,767 persons who lived outside the forest boundary but cultivated land within it.

The Bench referred to the definitions of Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDST) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFD) under Sections 2(c) and 2(o) of the FRA. These definitions require the persons concerned to satisfy the statutory conditions relating to residence in and dependence on forest land.

The Court held that persons falling under Categories II and III could not qualify as FDST or OTFD merely because they cultivated land within the forest area. It accordingly directed that these two categories be excluded from consideration under the FRA.

Committee to Scrutinise Forest Rights Claims

To ensure that claims under the FRA are examined through the prescribed process, the Supreme Court directed the State to constitute the remaining Gram Sabhas within 30 days. Once constituted, the pending claims must be processed through the three-tier mechanism under the Act and the exercise must be completed within five months.

The Court also constituted a Special Committee headed by former Chief Justice of India Justice B.R. Gavai, with a representative of the CEC and the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Tamil Nadu, as members. The Committee will scrutinise the orders passed on forest rights claims and supervise their disposal. The State has also been directed to submit monthly progress reports.

The judgment draws an important distinction between traditional forest rights recognised by law and commercial cultivation carried out within forest areas. It makes clear that cultivation alone cannot establish eligibility under the FRA or justify continued occupation of forest land. At the same time, the Court has left the specific status of silk cotton as minor forest produce for examination by the CEC. The matter is listed for February 1, 2027, when the Court will consider the interim status report.