A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in A. John Kennedy Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others addresses restoration and protection of the Agasthyamalai landscape a biodiversity hotspot in the Western Ghats and the competing claims of displaced plantation workers evicted from lands formerly under Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Ltd. (BBTCL).

The Court emphasises the primacy of forest conservation for ecological balance, water security and climate resilience and reiterates the established principle that core critical tiger habitat and reserved forests merit the highest protection.

Noting historical leases and century-long plantation cultivation on Singampatti Zamin lands which were subsequently notified as reserved forest, wildlife sanctuary and core tiger habitat, the Court finds the conservation imperative outweighs non-forestry uses and orders a scientific, technology-enabled survey by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to identify non-forestry activities, encroachments and to recommend restoration measures for reserved forests, tiger habitats, elephant corridors and wildlife sanctuaries within the Agasthyamalai landscape.

The Court frames time-bound directions for completion of the survey and lists future dates for receipt of the CEC report and separate consideration of rehabilitation claims. The decision builds on a line of Supreme Court precedents stressing restoration of forest cover and enforcement of statutory safeguards under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Keywords: Agasthyamalai, Core Critical Tiger Habitat, reserved forest, encroachment, Central Empowered Committee, Forest Conservation Act 1980, Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The petitions arise from two intertwined strands: first, ecological concerns seeking restoration of degraded forest tracts within the Agasthyamalai landscape (including Periyar Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Meghamalai, Thirunelveli sanctuaries) and second, welfare claims by displaced tea-estate workers who lost livelihood following eviction from the erstwhile BBTCL plantations on Singampatti Zamin lands.

Historically, the Zamindari lease (12 Feb 1929) permitted long-term cultivation; plantations cleared forest cover and sustained commercial operations for nearly a century. Subsequent State notifications (1978 reserved forest declaration; GOM No.145, 28.12.2007 Core Critical Tiger Habitat; 2012 wildlife sanctuary and tiger reserve notifications; 2018 inclusion in Kalakkad-Mundanthurai reserve) transformed the legal status, rendering prior lease-based cultivation inconsistent with statutory safeguards.

The High Court’s common order dated 3.12.2024 addressed rehabilitation aspects but left restoration and encroachment remediation inconclusive. The Supreme Court, acting in the continuing mandamus tradition of T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India, took up the incomplete remedial contours and directed a scientifically robust, time-bound survey by the CEC, reflecting the Court’s concern with forest cover depletion and its implications for ecological services, groundwater, river catchments (notably Thamirabarani), and biodiversity integrity.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Singampatti Zamin forest lands (3388.78 hectares) were leased to BBTCL in 1929; the lessee cleared and converted forest to plantations (tea, coffee, spices, rubber) over decades. State instruments progressively recharacterised the lands: a 1978 Government Order declared reserve forest; GOM No.145 (28.12.2007) designated the area as Core Critical Tiger Habitat; GOMs in 2012 declared wildlife sanctuary and tiger reserve status; by 2018 the lands were notified as part of Kalakkad-Mundanthurai reserve forest under the Tamil Nadu Forests Act, 1882.

BBTCL challenged notifications in W.P. No.16921 of 2014 (pending). A batch of High Court writs combined public interest demands for forest restoration and individual petitions from displaced plantation workers seeking rehabilitation, employment and compensation after eviction. Field status reports by the Deputy Director and Wildlife Warden asserted that large tracts are now core tiger habitat and that many plantation workers were migratory and did not qualify as traditional forest dwellers.

The State affirmed reclamation and relocation measures and expressed commitment to forest restoration. The High Court’s 3.12.2024 order left restoration measures unresolved, prompting this appeal/petition to the Supreme Court for directed scientific remediation and clarification of enforcement obligations.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether long-standing plantation cultivation under historical leases can defeat subsequent statutory notifications creating reserved forest, wildlife sanctuary and core critical tiger habitat?
ii. Whether the State and central agencies must undertake a scientific demarcation and restoration of degraded forest lands within the Agasthyamalai landscape and identify encroachments?
iii. What measures and safeguards are permissible to reconcile the conservation mandate with rehabilitation obligations of displaced plantation workers?
iv. Whether protection of core critical tiger habitat obligates removal of non-forestry infrastructures and prohibitions on commercial uses including ecotourism and plantations?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The petitioners (displaced workers) contended that eviction produced acute livelihood loss and mandated rehabilitation, employment and compensation as a matter of justice and equity; counsel urged court directions to ensure adequate social security, resettlement and employment opportunities, arguing that the State should balance conservation with human rights. They relied on factual reliance about dependence on plantation employment and the absence of durable alternative livelihoods.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State and environmental respondents submitted that the lands in question are legally notified as reserved forest and core tiger habitat, invoking Forest Conservation Act, 1980 (prior central approval required for non-forestry use) and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. They emphasized ecological imperatives — river catchment protection, biodiversity and tiger habitat maintenance — and asserted the need for removal of non-forestry activities. The State represented that relocation and rehabilitation processes have been undertaken for Singampatti workers and pledged cooperation with CEC for survey and restoration. BBTCL’s challenge to notifications remained pending.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Court affirmed constitutional and statutory duty to preserve forests and tiger habitats and directed the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) to undertake an extensive, technology-aided survey of the entire Agasthyamalai landscape (including Periyar TR, Srivilliputhur Grizzled Squirrel WS, Meghamalai, Thirunelveli WS).

The CEC must enumerate instances of non-forestry activities contrary to Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, prepare comparative historical vs. current forest cover data, and recommend precise restorative measures for (a) reserved forests, (b) tiger habitats, (c) elephant corridors, and (d) other wildlife reserves/sanctuaries. The Court permitted use of Remote Sensing Satellite Imagery, Geo-Mapping, and other scientific methods for boundary demarcation and expedited survey.

State and district authorities, police and forest departments must provide full assistance. The CEC was allotted twelve weeks to complete the exercise; the matter was listed for 15 July 2025 to receive the report. Rehabilitation issues were scheduled separately for 22 April 2025. The Court also underscored protecting forest personnel against malicious prosecution during evictions and the necessity of administrative and police support for enforcement.

The order builds on prior jurisprudence (including T.N. Godavarman lineage and State of Telangana v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim), reiterating that ecological exigencies prevail where statutory protection exists and that restoration must be science-driven and time-bounded.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The operative principle is that where lands have been legally notified as reserved forest or core critical tiger habitat, the State and Union have an enforceable duty to remove incompatible non-forestry uses and restore forest cover.

Historical leases or de-facto long-term cultivation cannot nullify later statutory notifications made following due process. Effective conservation requires precise demarcation, technological survey (satellite imagery and geo-mapping), and coordinated executive action under the statutory architecture of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

The Court’s command of a scientific survey by the CEC is essential to identify encroachments and prescribe calibrated restoration measures, thereby harmonizing ecosystem protection with procedural fairness to affected persons through separate rehabilitation proceedings.

b. OBITER DICTA

The judgment contains obiter language stressing the moral-legal duty to adopt an ecocentric approach and to protect forests as trustees of natural resources, referencing the Mahabharata metaphor for tigers and the ecosystem. The Court articulated broader policy observations on India’s comparative forest cover deficits versus neighbours, the scale of encroachment (citing executive reports of ~13,000 sq. km encroached) and the disproportionate impact of forest loss on vulnerable communities, without modifying existing statutory doctrines.

c. GUIDELINES 

1. CEC Survey Mandate: Conduct an exhaustive, time-bound survey of the Agasthyamalai landscape using remote sensing, geo-mapping and comparative forest cover analytics.

2. Scope of Report: Identify all non-forestry activities, quantify depletion, demarcate forest boundaries and recommend restoration measures for reserved forests, tiger habitats, elephant corridors and sanctuaries.

3. Executive Assistance: State, district, police and forest agencies must provide full cooperation and protection to forest personnel engaged in eviction/restoration operations.

4. Timeframe: Survey completion in 12 weeks; listing for report on 15 July 2025. Separate listing for rehabilitation issues on 22 April 2025.

5. Use of Science: Mandate satellite imagery and geo-spatial tools to ensure accuracy and to expedite remediation planning.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reiterates and operationalises the Supreme Court’s robust environmental jurisprudence: statutory notifications creating reserved forests and core tiger habitats attract the highest protection and require affirmative, scientifically-informed state action to remove non-forestry uses and restore ecosystem integrity.

By mandating a CEC survey using remote sensing and geo-mapping, the Court anchors administrative remediation in measurable data and time limits, reducing scope for ad hoc or politicised enforcement. The bifurcation of conservation measures and welfare claims (rehabilitation listed separately) reflects judicial sensitivity to socio-economic impacts while maintaining primacy of environmental protection under the public trust and constitutional duty.

The order also reflects procedural prudence by leaving pending challenges (e.g., BBTCL’s writ) on the record but not permitting such disputes to obstruct immediate conservation action. Practically, the decision reinforces:

(i) the non-retrospective inefficacy of private leases to override subsequent statutory forest notifications;

(ii) the indispensable role of geospatial science for boundary clarity; and

(iii) the need for planned rehabilitation measures consonant with conservation goals.

The judgment will guide future contestations where historical land-use change conflicts with present statutory conservation imperatives.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

• T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India and Ors.*, [2006] 3 S.C.R. 1024 : (2006) 1 SCC 1.

• State of Telangana and Others v. Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Dead) Per LRs*, (2024) 6 SCC 461.

• In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union Of India and Ors. (IA No. 20650 of 2023)*, (2025) 2 SCC 641.

• Bombay Burma Trading Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors.*, (2018) 1 CTC 733.

• A. John Kennedy Etc. v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others Etc.*, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1437 : 2025 INSC 443.

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

• Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

• Tamil Nadu Forests Act, 1882.