This article has been written by Mr. Sarthak Mangla, a student studying B.A. LL. B from Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida. The author is a 2nd year law student.
Introduction
The case of Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand is a significant judicial milestone that brought attention to issues related to indigenous rights, land acquisition, and the protection of tribal communities. In this article, we will delve into the details of the case, the legal arguments presented, and the implications it carries for the indigenous population in India. The case highlights the delicate balance between development and the preservation of tribal land rights.
Background:
The case emerged from a disagreement over the purchase of tribal land for economic interests in the eastern Indian state of Jharkhand. Sushil Murmu, a member of the indigenous group, protested the state government’s purchase of his ancestral property for the creation of a mining operation. Murmu claimed that the purchase infringed on his fundamental rights, including the right to subsistence, as provided by the Indian Constitution and other international treaties.
Legal Arguments:
Sushil Murmu’s attorney submitted many legal grounds to contest the land purchase. First, he claimed that the purchase infringed on his right to livelihood under Indian Constitution Article 21, which ensures the preservation of life and personal liberty. Murmu said that removing his land, which was his major source of income, would leave him and his community impoverished.
Second, the petitioner claimed that the purchase was in violation of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act of 1996 (PESA Act). The PESA Act recognises tribal groups’ traditional rights to their lands and empowers them to govern themselves through gramme sabhas (village assemblies). Murmu stated that the state administration had failed to acquire the permission of the Grame Sabha before acquiring the land, as mandated by the PESA Act.
Furthermore, Murmu’s attorney argued that the acquisition violated the Forest Rights Act of 2006, which recognises the rights of forest-dwelling people and seeks to redress historical wrongs. The attorney contended that the property in question was a forest area and therefore entitled to the protection provided by the Forest Rights Act. The state administration, on the other hand, defended the acquisition by citing the region’s need for growth and industrialization.
Court’s Ruling:
The Supreme Court of India, while ruling on the case, recognised the need to maintain indigenous groups’ rights while balancing development aims. The court agreed that the purchase of tribal territory should be addressed with prudence, with the goal of upholding the values of social justice and equality. The significance of giving proper compensation, rehabilitation, and alternative livelihood choices to impacted tribal groups was emphasised in the judgement.
The court ruled that acquiring tribal land without the agreement of the Gramme Sabha and without following the rules of the PESA Act constituted a breach of indigenous populations’ rights. The court emphasised that in such instances, the concept of free, prior, and informed consent should be observed. The court also recognised the Forest Rights Act’s application and ordered that the acquisition of land in forest regions must conform with the Act’s stipulations.
The court ordered the state government to re-evaluate the land purchase, taking into consideration the tribal community’s rights, their permission, and the terms of the PESA Act and the Forest Rights Act. The judge ordered the government to ensure adequate compensation and rehabilitation measures for the affected individuals and communities.
Implications and Significance
The Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand case is extremely important in defending indigenous populations’ rights and respecting their constitutional safeguards. In circumstances of land acquisition in tribal regions, the judgement emphasises the need for securing gramme sabha agreements and complying with the rules of the PESA Act and the Forest Rights Act. It sets a precedent for future cases involving indigenous rights and property acquisition, highlighting the importance of taking a cautious and balanced approach.
The decision also takes into account the socioeconomic impact of land acquisition on native people. The court recognises the possible displacement and disruption caused by development projects by emphasising the significance of providing proper compensation, rehabilitation, and alternative livelihood opportunities. This judgement establishes a benchmark for ensuring that the rights and well-being of indigenous communities are protected during processes of industrialization and infrastructure development.
Furthermore, the case underlines the importance of international treaties and pledges in ensuring indigenous rights. India has signed several international treaties, including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The interpretation of constitutional provisions by the court in light of these international obligations strengthens India’s commitment to safeguarding indigenous communities’ rights and aligning its legal structure with global norms.
The decision also reminds the government and other stakeholders to participate in genuine engagement and conversation with indigenous communities. The idea of free, prior, and informed consent, as codified in international agreements, serves as a guiding principle for interacting with indigenous groups and requesting their participation in decision-making processes affecting their lands and livelihoods.
Furthermore, the case of Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand emphasises the relevance of environmental concerns in land acquisition proceedings. The court recognises the biological relevance of tribal lands and the necessity to safeguard forest regions by recognising the validity of the Forest Rights Act. This decision serves as a warning that growth should not come at the price of environmental preservation and sustainable practises.
In practise, the decision requires state governments and administrative entities to reassess their procedures and policies involving tribal property acquisition. It emphasises the importance of a more participatory and inclusive approach that respects indigenous populations’ rights and interests. This judgement has the potential to influence the creation of comprehensive land use legislation and recommendations in future acquisition laws that consider the specific needs and concerns of tribal populations.
Conclusion:
The Sushil Murmu v. State of Jharkhand case is a significant shift in India’s legal environment relating to indigenous rights and land acquisition. The decision emphasises the need to balance development aspirations with the protection of indigenous groups, their traditional rights, and sustainable lifestyles. It emphasises the necessity of getting the gramme sabha’s free, prior, and informed permission, following the terms of the PESA Act and the Forest Rights Act, and guaranteeing suitable compensation and rehabilitation measures.
This important decision serves as a precedent for future land acquisition and indigenous community issues. It increases the constitutional safeguards of indigenous rights, emphasises the importance of international treaties, and emphasises the importance of environmental factors. The decision has farreaching ramifications for India’s legal framework, policies, and practises pertaining to indigenous populations, opening the way for a more inclusive and fair approach to development.
References:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/350207/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e46e4a93261aa792c330