Category: Samata Judgment Related News

Justice K Ramaswamy and Samata judgement

The Hans India || Vanam Jwala Narasimha Rao || 08 March 2019

Justice K Ramaswamy, former Supreme Court Judge who passed away on March 6, was popularly known for one of his landmark Judgements known as Samata Judgement that upheld the rights of tribals on their lands in tribal areas. The State government, in a befitting manner, conducted his funeral with all respects to the departed soul. Samata was a non-governmental organisation that worked for the rights of the tribal people as it found them being alienated from their lands and exploited by non-tribal people and the state, in contravention of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution and various Central and State government laws.

After a prolonged struggle, it approached courts. The case it filed in the then Andhra Pradesh High Court in 1993 against the then State government was dismissed. Then, Samata filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court. After a four-year legal battle, it won.

Supreme Court declared null and void the transfer of land in the Scheduled Areas for private mining and upheld the Forest Protection Act of 1980, which prohibits mining in reserved areas. The Supreme Court held that the state should adhere to the laws and principles governing the tribal areas, as any other person.

Justice K. Ramaswamy and Justice Sagir Ahmed said in their judgement that: “The Governor, in his personal responsibility, is empowered to maintain peace and good governance in a Scheduled Area. The Fifth Schedule empowers him to regulate allotment of land, between natural persons, Tribals and non-Tribals, and it imposes total prohibition of the transfer of the land in the Scheduled Area.

Wider interpretation of `regulation’ would include `prohibition’ which should be read into that clause. If so read, and a purposive construction is placed, the word `person’ would include natural persons as well as juristic persons and constitutional Governments.”

The Supreme Court’s judgment annulled all assignment of forest land to private entrepreneurs. The two Judges, however, allowed transfer of forest land to State instrumentalities, such as the Mineral Development Corporation, or to a Cooperative of Tribals on the condition that, they should set apart at least 20 per cent of the net profit as a permanent fund for setting up schools, hospitals, transport and sanitation facilities for the Tribals, the Judges said.

One of the assets of the tribal is the availability of minerals in their areas. Very large number of mineral deposits exist in the tribal tracts of which much is known but remain under exploited or unexploited and thereby left un-utilised. If these areas are properly investigated and exploited, there will be tremendous development of mining and mineral based industries resulting in industrial employment for the tribal. The entire tribal belt is potentially rich in both high grade and low grade metallic and non-metallic deposits.

Vast mineral potential in tribal areas can be commercially exploited, perhaps involving tribal community, and number of downstream mineral industries can also be developed for value addition and exports. When this is achieved it would not be difficult to create any permanent arrangement to create a permanent “Royalty Developmental Dividend Fund” for tribal development.

Tribal can also be uplifted by suitably granting certain percentage of shares in mining business. This will naturally make them aware of the importance of mineral in their land holds and steadily make them know the intricacies in the business and trade and thus encourage and promote them to join the stream of business management

Ultimately this will enhance their standard of living. The Land Transfer Regulation I of 1970 had positively attempted to restore the land owned by non-tribal to tribal in Scheduled Areas. It introduced the presumptive clause, that, Land owned by a non-tribal in a Scheduled Area will be deemed as acquired from a tribal until the contrary is proved.

The Regulation made it imperative that any non-tribal holding land in the Scheduled Area shall not transfer it to even any non-tribal. It stipulates, that, any transfer of immovable property situated in the agency tracts by a ‘person’, whether or not such a ‘person’ is member of a Scheduled Tribe, was absolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in favour of a ‘person’, who is member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society, registered under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 which is composed solely of members of Scheduled Tribes.

Regulation I of this Act is the primary law for the protection of the rights of the tribal over their lands. The Regulation as it stood originally, prohibited alienation of lands by tribal to non-tribal unless prior written permission on sanction of the competent authority was obtained. That Regulation also empowered the Agent (Collector) to decree an ejectment against any non-tribal in possession of any land the transfer of which was made in contravention of its provisions and to restore such lands to the transferors or their heirs.

Regulation II of 1963 later extended the Regulation, which was originally for the Andhra Area, to Scheduled Areas of Telangana also.

The Regulation had generated considerable amount of land restoration activity in the tribal areas till 1979. According to the ‘Tribal Cultural Research and Training Institute’, the number of non-tribal occupations in Scheduled Areas detected as prima-facie violating Land Transfer Regulation run in to several thousand and the extent of land in that was estimated to be several Lakhs of acres.

A little over fourth of that extent could only be restored to tribal population. In fact, the figures also revealed then, that, in couple of thousands of instances non-tribal could get favourable orders involving an extent of over a Lakh of acres. Against this, it is time now, to look in to the various aspects of Supreme Court Judgment dated July 11, 1997 (Nearly 20 years ago) in the Public Interest Litigation.

The Division Bench consisted of Justice K. Ramaswamy, Justice S. Sagir Ahmed and Justice G.B. Patnaik. The Judgment made it very clear; that, the word ‘person’ would include the State government and as such transfer of land in Scheduled Area by way of lease, for mining purpose in favour of non-tribal stands prohibited.

The Government also stands prohibited to transfer the mining leases to corporation aggregate etc except to its instrumentality says the Judgment. At one point of time the then President of India announced, that, a “Committee of Governors” would be formed to look into the serious inadequacies in the implementation of programs for the welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Supreme Court judgment also came out with several recommendations and what was the follow-up from the state and central governments subsequently is not known.

(The author is CPRO to CM, Telangana)

Without land or recourse

The Hindu|| Kalpana Kannabiran || FEBRUARY 23, 2019

The order of the Supreme Court issued on February 13 with respect to the claims of forest-dwelling peoples in India — the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers — is a case of the Supreme Court speaking against itself. In effect, the court has ordered the eviction of lakhs of people whose claims as forest dwellers have been rejected under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, or FRA. That this order negates the claims of citizens under special protection of the Constitution, viz. the Scheduled Tribes and other vulnerable communities already pushed by gross governmental neglect precariously to the edge, is another matter altogether. The question before us today centres on the responsibility of the Supreme Court in upholding constitutional claims and equal citizenship.

The background
The order in question was issued in the case of Wildlife First & Ors v. Ministry of Forest and Environment & Ors. The question before the court as stated in the order of 2016 when the matter was last heard related to “the constitutional validity of the [FRA] and also the questions pertaining to the preservation of forests in the context of the above-mentioned Act.” The details regarding claims made under the FRA that were placed before the court by the petitioner in 2016 showed that of the 44 lakh claims filed before appropriate authorities in the different States, 20.5 lakh claims (46.5%) were rejected. The order of 2016 went on to observe: “Obviously, a claim in the context of the above-mentioned Act is based on an assertion that a claimant has been in possession of a certain parcel of land located in the forest areas.” True. A claim is made either for individual or community rights by the people/communities covered by the FRA. This is a plain reading of the Act, which is unambiguous on this score.

From here, however, that order did a jurisprudential somersault to observe, “If the claim is found to be not tenable by the competent authority, the result would be that the claimant is not entitled for the grant of any Patta or any other right under the Act but such a claimant is also either required to be evicted from that parcel of land or some other action is to be taken in accordance with law” (emphasis added). This was the material part of the order. In other words, the claimant cannot contest the decision of the authority, said the court. With respect to action to be taken against those “unauthorisedly in possession of forest land”, the States were then asked by the Supreme Court to report on concrete measures taken to evict the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers from the forest. In the very next paragraph, which pertained to the State of Tamil Nadu, the order referred to action against those people whose claims had been rejected as “eviction of encroachers”.

What now?
In the present order of February 2019, the Supreme Court specifically directs governments in 21 States by name to carry out evictions of rejected claimants without further delay and report on or before July 12. There are several questions that must be foregrounded for immediate attention.

The most obvious one has to do with the meanings attached to the rejection of claims. According to the 2014 report of the High-Level Committee on Socio-Economic, Health and Educational Status of Tribal Communities in India, constituted by the Government of India (Xaxa Committee), 60% of the forest area in the country is in tribal areas — protected by Article 19(5) and Schedules V and VI of the Constitution. With specific reference to claims under the FRA, reiterating the finding of several other studies that have documented the deep procedural flaws in processing claims, the Xaxa Committee observed that “claims are being rejected without assigning reasons, or based on wrong interpretation of the ‘OTFD’ definition and the ‘dependence’ clause, or simply for lack of evidence or ‘absence of GPS survey’ (lacunae which only require the claim to be referred back to the lower-level body), or because the land is wrongly considered as ‘not forest land’, or because only forest offence receipts are considered as adequate evidence. The rejections are not being communicated to the claimants, and their right to appeal is not being explained to them nor its exercise facilitated.” The mere rejection of claims by the state therefore does not add up to a finding of the crime of “encroachment” — the sheer volume of rejections should instead set alarm bells ringing in the court of procedural improprieties.

Interestingly, in this case it appears as if a private party — Wildlife First — is pitted against the state. A closer examination reveals that it is, in fact, Wildlife First and the state together which have joined forces against the most vulnerable communities in the country living in areas constitutionally protected from encroachment even by the state — can we forget the stellar Samata judgment of the Supreme Court in 1997?

Why must we worry about this order of the Supreme Court in 2019? As has been widely reported, the immediate result will be the forced eviction of over one million people belonging to the Scheduled Tribes and other forest communities. Importantly, the area marked for eviction falls under areas designated under Schedule V and Schedule VI of the Constitution — there is no reference to the implications for governance in the Scheduled Areas and whether the Supreme Court, in fact, has the authority to order evictions of Scheduled Tribes from Scheduled Areas. In a democratic country with citizens (not subjects) and a written Constitution which is affirmed by the people who are sovereign, how can we countenance the dismantling of an entire constitutional apparatus that prescribes the non-derogable boundaries to Adivasi homelands and institutional mechanisms that promote autonomy and restrain interference in self-governance?

Against the safeguards
At an even more fundamental level, we are speaking of special protections under the Constitution — even more today than ever before. The presence of Article 19(5) in the Fundamental Rights chapter of the Constitution, which specifically enjoins the state to make laws “for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe”, is vital. How has the Supreme Court ordered the eviction in complete disregard of this core and express fundamental right protection to Adivasis (as distinct from legal/statutory protection), which protects them from a range of state and non-state intrusions in Scheduled Areas as well as from the perennial threat of eviction from their homelands? Is it not the supreme obligation of the Supreme Court to protect the Scheduled Tribes and other vulnerable communities from the grave harms of violent dispossession?

Finally, in the recent judgments of the apex court on the right to privacy and Section 377, the court has sung paeans to autonomy, liberty, dignity, fraternity and constitutional morality — the pillars of transformative constitutionalism. It is the same court in the same era that has now ordered the dispossession of entire communities protected under the Constitution. We, as citizens, have every reason to worry.

Land reforms in India remain a stalled and forgotten agenda; no progress made on CSLR report on issue

As the agenda for upcoming general elections for Lok Sabha shapes up, one agenda that is likely to be missing is that of wealth inequality and, more precisely, land ownership. Yet, the issue remains ever relevant as about 5 percent of farmers hold about 32 percent of farmland and a large farmer (owner of around 43 acres) owns 45 times the size of land that a marginal farmer (owner of around 0.96 acres) owns.

Seeing the magnitude of the problem of land inequality, the Indian government had initiated land reforms programmes soon after Independence which were subsequently adopted in different states. While the programmes succeeded in a few states, they largely failed in most. The stagnation of the progress of land reforms programmes in various states and in the nation as a whole, especially in recent times, has been elaborated in detail by this correspondent in an earlier published article. Read more

Is the Pathalgadi Movement in Tribal Areas Anti-constitutional?

The Pathalgadi movement has stemmed from the unabated alienation of land from tribal people, and is a democratic assertion for the realisation of their rights in light of the government’s failure to implement the same.

A movement known as the Pathalgadi movement has been brewing for quite some time in the tribal areas in the heart of India. Yet, it had not caught the attention of the people at large and the national media, until the alleged kidnap and gang rape of five non-governmental organisation (NGO) workers by some youths in the Khunti district of Jharkhand. The movement, though not confined to them, is more notable in the states of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and Odisha. The state administration and regional media have dubbed the movement as anti-national and Maoist-driven. Cases of sedition have been filed against people sympathetic to, and those associated with the movement, as well as villagers supporting the movement. A large number of people have been arrested. Some are on bail while others are still languishing in jails. The Pathalgadis, on the other hand, claim it to be constitutional. The claim, in my view, is true and tenable, though they have been over-enthusiastic in their interpretation of some provisions. The problem with the special provisions provided for tribes in the Constitution and laws enacted for their safeguard is that the very people and institutions—politicians, administrators and the judiciary—that are to administer them, have generally little knowledge and understanding of the special provisions and laws themselves. These are special provisions and laws, and cannot be subservient to the laws, rules and regulations applicable to the general population.

Pathalgadi as Tribal Tradition

The term Pathalgadi has been drawn from a tribal custom of placing a stone at the tomb of a dead person, especially among tribes belonging to the Austro–Asiatic linguistic family such as the Mundas, Khasis, etc. Sasandiri was the original term the Mundas used to describe this practice. However, after the enactment of the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) in 1996, former Indian Administrative Services (IAS) officer B D Sharma and former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Bandi Oraon initiated the practice of placing stone slabs inscribed with provisions of the act. This was done with a view to raise awareness of the provisions among the villagers. It is worth noting here that the 73rd (Panchayati Raj) and 74th (Nagarpalika) constitutional amendment acts of 1992 were excluded from their extension to the Fifth and Sixth Scheduled Areas. Parliament was to extend provisions for Scheduled Areas by enacting separate laws, which it did through the PESA in 1996. The act extended the provisions of the Panchayat Act to the Scheduled Areas.

Social Moorings

What is happening today in the tribal areas in the heart of India, reminds one of the early phase of the British rule in these areas. The British brought tribes under the same rule and administration as others, once the territories they inhabited were incorporated into British India. There was an imposition of laws, rules, regulation and administration that were alien to the tribes. The new land and revenue settlements resulting in the introduction of private property in land along with written documents in support of it, was one such instance that played havoc in tribal areas. This was the beginning of the alienation of tribal land to non-tribes. The improvement of the means of communication to tribal areas only accelerated these processes as the regions were now not only opened to the movement of traders, merchants and moneylenders, but also to the land-hungry non-tribal peasants from the plains in its vicinity. This accelerated the alienation of the tribal land leading to general restlessness among tribes, culminating in a series of revolts and rebellions at a regular interval all through the late 18th and 19th centuries. Often, these revolts are treated as wars of independence of the tribes against the British. It is worth noting that these wars were as much against the people of the plains as against the British. Both were equal partners in the oppression and exploitation of the tribes. The recurrent revolts did pose a threat to the British rule and administration. As a measure to contain such recurrences in the future, the British therefore toyed with the idea of certain safeguards. These came in the form of non-regulation tracts where general laws and regulation were not applicable unless felt otherwise. Later, such areas came to be referred to as excluded and partially excluded areas, which provided some space for traditional systems of self-governance.

Much of the problems the tribals have been facing today have their roots in this colonial legacy, which became even more entrenched in post-independence India. What is being witnessed today in tribal areas is a repeat of what their forefathers had been through about 200 years ago. Alienation of land from the tribes to non-tribes has continued unabated despite the constitutional provision of bringing much of the areas that the tribes inhabit into the Scheduled Areas, either under the provision of the Fifth or Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. This problem has been compounded by the extent of displacement that the tribes in the region, especially the Fifth Scheduled Areas, have been witness to following the state development projects as a part of the nation-building process. With the opening up of the Indian economy to the wider world through the processes of liberalisation and globalisation since the early 1990s, there has been an unprecedented entry of the private companies, including multinational corporations (MNCs), for resource extraction and profit. The state governments have been very proactive in facilitating and aiding this process. As there are laws restricting alienation of land from tribes to non-tribes, states began acquiring lands and making it available at the disposal of private companies at a price higher than what it paid to tribes as compensation.

Such passing of tribal land by the state to private companies in the Fifth Scheduled Areas, as per the historic Samata judgment of the Supreme Court in 1997, is legally and constitutionally untenable. Hence, the state governments have been toying with the idea of tampering with the legal and constitutional safeguards meant for the tribes. This has been most evident in Jharkhand. There had been attempts to bring in amendments to the Chhotanagpur Land Tenancy Act, 1908 and the Santhal Pargana Tenancy Act, 1949. The former was enacted in the aftermath of the tumultuous Birsa Munda movement. The bill failed to receive the assent of the Governor due to massive protests by the tribals. As a strategy to break the unity of the tribes, the Jharkhand Freedom of Religion Bill was introduced and passed in 2017. A few months later, an ordinance was passed introducing the amendment to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Settlement (Jharkhand Amendment) Bill, 2017. The ordinance has been awaiting assent of the Governor and President. All these moves are pointers to the persistent attempts by the government to counter the provisions of protection and safeguard enshrined in the Constitution and laws.

Legitimate Assertion

Given such repeated moves by the states for the acquisition of tribal lands, the tribes are pushed to defend themselves. Earlier, they had been resisting such projects through protest, rallies and other democratic means on a continuing basis. Of late, however, they have been trying to defend themselves from such assault by asserting their constitutional and legal rights emanating from the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution. In the Fifth Schedule, the governors, to begin with, are vested with special powers to safeguard and protect the interests of the tribal population. They are expected to examine laws enacted by Parliament and the state legislature to ascertain if they are in keeping with safeguarding of tribal interests, and accordingly have the power to restrain their application in Scheduled Areas or suggest their application along with suitable amendments. They are responsible for the maintenance of law and good governance in tribal areas. In all these they are expected to take the advice of the Tribes Advisory Council. They are also expected to submit annual reports to the President of India on the tribal situation of the state. Paradoxically, however, the governors have shied away from this constitutional responsibility. Due to this, much harm has already been done and is still being done, but the governors seem to be oblivious of their responsibility. Under the Sixth Schedule too, the Governor is a custodian of tribal interest though there is a provision of self-governance in the form of autonomous district councils. The autonomous council has legislative, executive and judicial power over certain subjects. What the Fifth Scheduled Areas of mainland India did not have is self-governance. Hence, there was a campaign and movement for self-governance which was led by Bharat Jan Andolan, an umbrella organisation of NGOs, activists, academics and grass-roots tribal community organisations. The slogan of the movement was “hamara gaon hamara raj” (our village, our rule). The movement culminated in the enactment of the PESA in 1996.

In short, the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution provides for administration and control of Scheduled Areas and Scheduled Tribes (STs) and gives power to the Governor to make regulations for peace and good governance of the Scheduled Areas. Deriving force from these enabling provisions in the Constitution aimed at ensuring social, economic and political equity, several specific legislations have further been enacted by the central and state governments for the welfare of the STs, the PESA being one of them. Essentially, the Fifth Schedule is a historic guarantee to the STs over the land they live on.

However, the acronym PESA for Provisions of Panchayat (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act is somewhat misleading. It is important to note that it is not an extension of panchayati raj as it is generally viewed, but an extension of the provisions of the panchayat to Scheduled Areas. The provisions provided in the PESA are substantially different in letter and spirit from the Panchayat Raj constitutional amendment act of 1992. The latter was exempted from its application in the Fifth and Sixth Scheduled Areas. The PESA provides for self-governance through traditional gram sabhas for people living in the Fifth Scheduled Areas. In fact, the PESA mandates that notwithstanding anything contained under Part IX of the Constitution, the legislatures of the states shall not make any law under that part which is inconsistent with any of the features of the PESA. The key features are:

(i) A state legislation on the panchayat that may be made shall be in consonance with the customary law, social and religious practices and traditional management practices of community resources. Every gram sabha shall be competent to safeguard and preserve the traditions and customs of the people, their cultural identity, community resources and customary mode of dispute resolution.

(ii) All relevant subject laws and rules, central and state are to harmonise with the aims and objectives of the PESA. Some of the key acts that need consideration in this context are those regarding land acquisition, mines and minerals, forests, forest conservation, excise, etc.

(iii) While endowing panchayats in the Scheduled Areas with such powers and authority as may be necessary to enable them to function as institutions of self-governance, the state legislature is to ensure that the panchayats and the gram sabha are endowed with power and authority to enforce or regulate the ownership of minor forest produce, power to prevent alienation of land and to restore alienated land, the power to manage village markets, exercise control over moneylending, excise, etc.

Given such powers to tribes under the PESA, it is extremely problematic to treat the Pathalgadi movement as anti-national and book people associated with the movement under charges of sedition. In fact, the people are merely asserting the rights provided to them by law and the Constitution. If they have gone somewhat overboard with regard to the interpretation of some of the provisions, the state governments are almost totally ignorant of special rights provided to tribes in the Constitution and law enacted by the state. If governments fail to imple­ment the rights given to the people, it is only imperative that people engage in democratic assertion for the realisation of their rights. Indeed, history is witness to the fact that the implementation of laws has been effective only where there are grass-roots organisations to ensure the effective realisation of rights.

Courtesy: Economic & Political Weekly

‘Pathalgarhi demands legitimate’

“The movement and the demand for empowering gram sabhas in Fifth Schedule areas was well within constitutional provisions.”

“However,” he added, “If the gram sabha tries to reject the assembly or the Lok Sabha, it would defeat the purpose of the Constitution.” Read more

Courtesy: The Times of India

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 12