Sharique Mashhadi
The recent landmark decision of the Jharkhand Cabinet, led by Chief Minister Hemant Soren, to implement the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), invites both recognition and reflection. Nearly three decades after PESA became law, its constitutional promise has remained largely unrealized in Jharkhand. For a state born out of the aspiration to protect Adivasi identity, culture, and rights, this long delay offers a sobering reminder of the distance between constitutional vision and lived reality.
The prolonged delay is not merely administrative. It exposes a deeper contradiction between constitutional intent and lived reality in Scheduled Areas. It also forces us to confront uncomfortable questions about the nature of democracy and development in tribal regions—questions that can no longer be postponed if self-governance, dignity, and justice for Adivasi communities are to be meaningfully realised.
PESA emerged from a conscious recognition that India’s dominant models of governance were ill-suited to tribal regions. While the 73rd Constitutional Amendment institutionalised Panchayati Raj across the country, it deliberately excluded Scheduled Areas, acknowledging that a uniform framework could undermine indigenous social and governance systems. To address this gap, the Bhuriya Committee was constituted in 1995 under the chairmanship of Dilip Singh Bhuriya. The committee strongly recommended empowering Gram Sabhas and formally recognising customary institutions of self-rule in tribal areas.
What is PESA?
Based on the recommendations of the Bhuriya Committee, Parliament enacted the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act (PESA) in 1996. The law extends decentralised self-governance to Scheduled Areas while respecting the distinct social, cultural, and political realities of Adivasi communities. At its core lies a simple but transformative principle: governance in tribal regions must be rooted in the Gram Sabha.
PESA empowers Gram Sabhas to safeguard customary laws and cultural identity; manage and protect natural resources such as land, water, and forests; exercise ownership over minor forest produce; prevent land alienation and facilitate the restoration of unlawfully alienated land; and ensure mandatory consultation before land acquisition, mining, or development projects. It also entrusts Gram Sabhas with oversight of local institutions and welfare programmes. In essence, PESA seeks to reverse top-down governance and place decision-making authority firmly in the hands of village communities.
Why PESA Matters in Jharkhand
This vision holds particular relevance for Jharkhand. The state has a substantial Scheduled Area population and a long history of community-based governance systems. Institutions such as the Munda-Manki, Pahan, and Manjhi systems have regulated land, forests, and social life for generations. PESA was designed not to replace these institutions, but to recognise and strengthen them within a constitutional framework.
Yet, despite this alignment, Jharkhand has been among the states where PESA has remained largely on paper. Since the Act requires states to frame their own rules, implementation has depended heavily on political will. Across the country, this has resulted in uneven and often diluted outcomes. In Jharkhand, the consequences of delay have been severe: persistent land alienation, displacement driven by mining and infrastructure projects, erosion of customary authority, and growing mistrust between Adivasi communities and the state.
PESA is not merely an administrative reform. It is a democratic and moral commitment to correct historical injustices. It challenges extractive models of development that treat land and forests as commodities, rather than as living ecosystems central to Adivasi identity and survival. By foregrounding consent, collective decision-making, and ecological stewardship, PESA offers an alternative vision of development—one rooted in justice rather than dispossession.
The Road Ahead: From Notification to Transformation
The real test, however, lies ahead. The implementation of PESA in Jharkhand must move beyond cabinet notifications and rulebooks. It will require sustained political will to resist entrenched extractive interests, administrative courage to devolve real power to Gram Sabhas, and long-term investment in capacity-building, legal awareness, and institutional accountability. Without these, PESA risks becoming yet another symbolic promise in a long history of deferred justice.
But if implemented in its true spirit, PESA offers Jharkhand a rare opportunity to realign governance with the values that animated the state’s formation. This moment calls not only for policy reform, but for moral leadership—leadership that honours the Constitution and restores faith in democracy by placing Adivasi communities at the centre of decisions that shape their lives.
(The author serves as Director at Dream a Dream and works closely on the implementation of the Harsh Johar social-emotional learning curriculum in government schools in Jharkhand)
