The Constitution of India provides several layers of protection to indigenous communities, the most important being the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, which safeguard tribal land, culture, and self governance. Tribal belief systems and culture are deeply tied to nature and the forest. These protections were carried into the Constitution from earlier British laws such as the Scheduled Districts Act of 1874 and the Agency Tracts Interest and Land Transfer Act of 1917. Those laws themselves were responses to decades of exploitation of tribal communities by moneylenders, traders, and dominant settlers.
The purpose of these constitutional safeguards is clear: to protect tribal culture, traditions, and practices while preserving the ecosystem and land, since tribal communities are worshippers of nature; to shield them from exploitation arising from their economic vulnerability and lack of exposure; and to nurture tribal leadership within the democratic system so that they remain active participants in their own governance.
Autonomous Councils under the Sixth Schedule and the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), were created to protect tribal traditions, values, and knowledge systems, while strengthening tribal leadership. It is well established that many general laws do not apply to Scheduled Areas — a deliberate choice reflecting the special care extended to tribes under Articles 244, 46, and the Fifth Schedule. This constitutional framework was never meant to be static; it was designed as a continuing shield against the historical pattern of land alienation, indebtedness, and political marginalisation of Scheduled Tribes.
Challenges to Tribal Land Protection
Two recent matters before the Supreme Court appear to be coordinated attacks on these protections. The first challenges the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Areas Land Transfer Regulation, 1959, as amended by Regulation I of 1970, popularly known as the “1/70 Act.” This law prohibits the transfer of immovable property or land from tribals to non tribals, or even between non tribals, in Scheduled Areas. Similar laws exist in six other Scheduled States, though not always with absolute prohibitions. The 1/70 Act declares that
Agency tracts any transfer of immovable property situated in the Agency tracts by a person. Whether or not such person is a member of a Scheduled Tribe, shall be absolutely null and void, unless such transfer is made in favour of person, who is a member of a Scheduled Tribe or a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 (Act7 of 1964) which is composed solely of members of the Scheduled Tribes.
The petitioners, led by Sureddy Ramana Reddy (SLP(C) No. 1580 of 2023) and Yerramsetty Satyanarayana along with over 1,600 non tribal residents, argue that the 2011 Census shows non tribals now form a majority in several villages and mandal headquarters, and that the blanket prohibition violates Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300 A of the Constitution.
The second case, filed by the Non Tribal Welfare Society, challenges the reservation of the Sarpanch’s post in Scheduled Areas of Telangana under Section 4(g) of PESA.
PESA and Tribal Political Leadership
Section 4(g) of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) mandates that in all Scheduled Areas, the office of the Chairperson at every level of the Panchayat—village, intermediate, and district—shall be reserved exclusively for members of the Scheduled Tribes. This provision ensures that tribal communities exercise leadership and decision making authority in their own regions, thereby safeguarding their constitutional rights, cultural identity, and control over local governance.
The Non tribal welfare Society argues that the rising non tribal population no longer justifies such reservation.
Read together, the pattern is unmistakable: one petition challenges the prohibition on land transfers, while the other challenges the reservation of Panchayat leadership posts. Both rely on the same demographic argument — that the growing non tribal population should dilute tribal protections. In reality, these petitions are two sides of the same coin: weakening land safeguards and simultaneously undermining political safeguards. Neither can be viewed in isolation, because both strike at the constitutional promise of the Fifth Schedule and PESA.
Supreme Court Precedents and the Constitutional Question
Both arguments have already been addressed by the Supreme Court. In P. Rami Reddy (1988), the Court upheld the ban on land transfers to non tribals under Regulation I of 1970, noting that the earlier 1959 law failed because non tribals often used fake names or secret deals to exploit tribals. The Court made it clear that unless new non tribal settlers are stopped from entering Scheduled Areas, exploitation will continue. Later, in Samatha (1997), the Court went further, stressing that land for tribal communities is not just property — it is their livelihood, identity, and home. The petitioners’ reliance on Chebrolu Leela Prasad Rao (2021) is misplaced, because that case dealt with teacher reservations, not land laws. It never questioned Regulation I of 1970 or the Governor’s special powers under the Fifth Schedule.
Also Read | “Carbon Blame Is Misplaced”: PM Modi Defends India, Developing Nations At Climate Conference
The distinction between tribals and non tribals is not arbitrary; it is directly supported by the Constitution under Articles 46, 244, and the Fifth Schedule, which aim to prevent tribal land alienation. Nor does the Regulation violate property or fundamental rights, since non tribals can still sell land to tribals or surrender it to the government for compensation. In short, the law is a reasonable safeguard for a vulnerable community, not an unfair restriction.
The Continuing Constitutional Promise
The same constitutional logic also protects PESA’s Section 4(g), which reserves all Panchayat chairperson positions in Scheduled Areas for Scheduled Tribes. Demographic changes caused by bypassing land transfer safeguards cannot then be used as an excuse to dismantle those very safeguards — including political reservation for tribal leadership — that the Fifth Schedule and PESA were created to guarantee. Allowing such an argument would reward the very mischief the law was meant to prevent, letting decades of illegal land alienation become the basis for removing tribal self governance. This provision has already been challenged before the Supreme Court in another form, and the Court upheld its validity in Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar (2010).
In conclusion, both petitions, though presented separately as property and electoral disputes, are part of a larger challenge to the constitutional protections guaranteed to Scheduled Tribes. This trend risks spreading to other Scheduled States, where at least five similar laws are in force. The historical record, from the Agency Tracts Act of 1917 through Regulations of 1959, 1970, 1971, and 1978, along with Supreme Court rulings in P. Rami Reddy and Samatha, shows that these safeguards were built over decades of hard lessons about the persistence of tribal exploitation. It is therefore vital that the courts, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, and the State Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana resist any weakening of these protections. They must defend both the constitutional validity of Regulation I of 1970 and Section 4(g) of PESA with equal strength. The real issue before the Supreme Court is not the inconvenience of a few non tribal landholders or political aspirants, but the continuing vitality of the constitutional promise embodied in the Fifth Schedule.
Click here to join our WhatsApp Channel for real-time news updates and exclusive coverage.
