#Tribal Rights

Gauhati High Court upholds the application of the Inner Line Permit regime to Dimapur, Chumoukedima, and Niuland under the Bengal Eastern Frontier Regulation, 1873, affirming its continuity under Article 372. The judgment rejects challenges under Articles 14, 19, and 21, clarifying that the permit system constitutes a reasonable restriction under Article 19(5) to protect tribal rights and public order.

The Gujarat High Court has halted all demolition and eviction actions against tribal families while their land rights claims are under statutory review under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. This stay upholds the Act’s protective intent and enforces natural justice by preventing irreversible harm before a final determination, directly safeguarding the livelihoods of generations-old forest-dwelling communities.

Gujarat High Court rules that Gram Sabha recommendations and evidence of long-term cultivation are sufficient to establish entitlement under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The Court directs the State to adjudicate pending claims within eight weeks, emphasizing procedural fairness and timely resolution for tribal land rights.

Gujarat High Court reaffirms that the Forest Rights Act, 2006 imposes no time limit for filing tribal land claims, making it an ongoing process. The court directed the state to provide claim forms and decide pending representations within eight weeks, ensuring compliance across all tribal districts. This ruling reinforces tribal rights and mandates administrative accountability under the FRA.

Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench reinforces tribal autonomy under the PESA Act, 1996, ruling that Gram Sabha consultation is non-negotiable before minor mineral auctions in Scheduled Areas. The judgment directs Maharashtra to align its auction policy with PESA provisions, impacting mineral governance and tribal rights enforcement across Fifth Schedule regions.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that denying a woman a Special Bonafide Resident Certificate solely because she moved out of a Tribal Sub-Plan area after marriage violates Article 14 and undermines the very purpose of the certificate, which is tied to ancestral residence, not marital relocation. This sets a critical precedent protecting the land and welfare rights of married women from patriarchal administrative practices in tribal regions.

Bombay High Court holds that a pre-2000 caste certificate issued to a parent validates a child's claim; SDOs cannot re-examine validity under the Caste Certificate Act, 2000.