A Short History:
The estate of Manjolai region is a beautiful landscape located in the Western Ghats in the Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. In 1929, Singampatti Zamindar, who controlled the land, leased 8374 acres to Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation (BBTC), a private company owned by Nusliwadia of present Wadia Group, Maharashtra, for a period of 99-year lease. The BBTC started tea plantations in the region, with workers belonging to Scheduled castes and tribal communities brought from different places. These workers were brought there solely for plantation work by middlemen known as ‘kanganis’ with the assurance of a promising livelihood. Since then, the workers have faced numerous problems regarding working conditions, health issues, wages, accessibility outside of Manjolai, etc. The ownership shifted from the Zamindar to the government after the enactment of the Ryotwari Act in 1948 post-independence. One of the most egregious moments in the history of Manjolai plantation workers is the 1999 ‘Manjolai Labourers Massacre’, where hundreds of laborers were beaten up brutally by the police for a demonstration against the Company for various demands, including a wage hike of Rs.3. This incident also resulted in the death of 17 people whose bodies were found in the Tamirabarani river.
The Current Case:
In its long history, there have been several rounds of litigation between Zamindar and the government, the Company, and the government, and now the workers and the Company. The government declared the land to be a forest land, a tiger reserve, and a ‘Core Critical Tiger Reserve’ on different occasions from the time of independence, but the BBTC protected their lease and the business through their legal battles in the court. Earlier this year, the BBTC, owing to its ostensible financial constraints and other reasons, expressed its wish to close the plantations and asked the workers to sign a voluntary retirement scheme and leave the estate within August 7. Although few workers signed the VRS without knowing what to do, many refused to leave the place they had lived in for generations, resulting in several writ petitions filed by several workers before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The last hearing date came up on November 6,2024, in the principal bench before Justice Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakaravarthy. The company, the government, the workers, and environmentalists put forth a range of arguments. The judges have reserved the judgment for another day, but the submissions made on different areas with solid legal bases would make it challenging for them to decide on this potentially landmark case.
Submissions by the Government:
The Advocate General(AG) of Tamil Nadu, P S Raman, who argued on behalf of the State Government, covered three aspects in the case: (i) Whether the Manjolai plantation workers are protected under the Forest Rights Act, 2006? (ii) Can the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation(TANTEA) take over the estate and continue the tea production? (iii) What rehabilitation measures is the government initiating to help the plantation workers? The AG submitted that the plantation workers would not fall under the two categories of forest dwellers under the 2006 Act, i.e., forest-dwelling scheduled tribes(FDST) and other traditional forest tribes(OTFD) under sections 2(c) and 2(o), respectively. The reasoning was that they were all not scheduled tribes from Manjolai and were workers brought from different areas only for plantation work. Learned AG’s submission was also on the point that schools, hospitals, and other amenities are built for them, which would amount to urbanization. He further submitted that although they have been present there for more than three generations, as mandated in section 2(o), they don’t primarily depend on the forest for their livelihood but are mere plantation workers. So, according to the state’s submission, they are not entitled to any benefits under Forest Rights Act, 2006 He also relied on the case of P. Raman vs The Chief Secretary, W.P.(MD)No.6994/2021, wherein the Meghamalai Tea Plantation Workers were not given protection under the Forest Rights Act. 2006, citing that they are mere plantation workers and not forest dwellers.
On the question of the takeover of the tea estate by the TANTEA, the AG ruled it out entirely because the Singampatti estate was notified as forest land in 22.03.1937 under the Madras Forest Act of 1882, then declared as Mundanthurai Tiger Sanctuary on 02.08.1962 under The Wild Birds And Animals Protection Act, 1912, as a ‘Core Critical Tiger Habitat’ on 28.12.2007 under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and finally in 2018, the region was declared as a Reserve Forest under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The government, however, did not have a solid plan for the estate after sending the workers out, but the learned AG subtly hinted at the possibility of an eco-tourism project in Manjolai. The government devised several proposals to uplift their lives for the third aspect: rehabilitation measures. The AG submitted that after being sent away from Manjolai, they will be granted houses worth up to 14 lakh rupees under the ‘Kalaingar Kanavu Illam’ scheme. He submitted that around 240 houses in the foothills of Manimuthar and 150 homes in Reddiarpatti hills are ready for occupation. Free seeds for low interest under the ‘Ambedkar Business Championship Scheme’ and other welfare measures, including the New Entrepreneur cum Enterprise Development Scheme (NEEDS) was proposed by AG.
Submissions by BBTC:
The Company, represented by Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan, made the submissions based majorly on two points: the reason for leaving Manjolai and the closure’s legality. The Company submitted the facts in concurrence with the government, saying that the land was notified as forest and tiger reserves on several occasions. A lot has been done in the court to keep the estate going and prevent the government from taking the land. Learned counsel submitted that a vast amount of money in a list of cases has been spent to save the estate, and now it has reached a point where it can go no further. This is why BBTC had to quit, and he specifically noted that even the Manjolai workers knew that the company had no future in Manjolai anymore. Regarding the legality of closure, the company said that the Voluntary Retirement Scheme proposed to the workers was signed willfully by more than 100 workers, and no coercion was exerted. The company also submitted that they had provided double the amount mandated by the law, which is the best they could do.
Submissions by Henri Tiphagne:
Advocate Henri Tiphagne, who is a human rights lawyer, although not an advocate on record in this case, was asked to assist the court with his expertise in business and human rights. The submission made by the learned counsel was mainly based on two points: the role of the National Human Rights Commission(NHRC) in this case and the aspect of business and human rights from an international legal perspective. He brought to the court’s notice that the NHRC, in this case, sent a fact-finding team to Manjolai, who made a detailed investigation by meeting the district collector, the workers, the company, the member of parliament in the constituency etc, and made a report. In fact, it is the only independent body that has conducted a field study on this case, and it could be of much value in deciding this case, as submitted by advocate Henri. He highlighted that it would be unfair if such a crucial material is left unused in a case of immense importance. Then, he took the court to some International frameworks relevant to the case, particularly the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights(UNGPBHR). He highlighted several principles, including 17 to 21, 25 and 26, which place responsibility on business organizations to consult with workers before making decisions that might have adverse human rights impact on them, as in the current case. It is pertinent to note that the UNGPBHR specifically mentions marginalized communities and vulnerable stakeholders who are highly important in these consultation processes. During his submission, Learned AG said that Manjolai has undergone urbanization, and thus, workers cannot be protected under the Forest Rights Act of 2006. For this, learned counsel Henri refuted that houses and dispensaries that are basic to life’s existence cannot be considered urbanization.
Dr K Krishnaswamy’s submissions:
Dr K Krishnaswamy, chief of the Puthiya Tamilagam party and a social worker, represented the workers in this case and made his submissions on the forest rights illegal closure and also countered the government’s stance about their future plans for Manjolai. He submitted that to claim rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, their presence in the region for more than 75 years is enough as per section 2(o). The closure of the company and the VRS scheme forced upon the workers is illegal as 90 days prior notice before closure was not given, nor has the company given the workers an opportunity be heard as mandated under section 25(o) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He also confirmed his strong apprehension about the eco-tourism plan hinted by the AG. He, in fact, submitted that the people of Manjolai, who had now lived there for almost 100 years, shall better protect the forest,, thus clarifying the position of the workers that leaving that place is the last thing the world wants in life.
Analysis:
The case of Manjolai is an exceptional case for legal analysis as it has various dimensions with interconnected and contradictory aspects to one another. The earliest dispute between the Singampetti Zamindar and the Indian Government pertains to a unique aspect of our constitutional jurisprudence, where exclusive ownership of land by zamindars was abolished by the Zamindari Abolition Act of 1950. The other round of litigations between the BBTC and the government majorly revolves around environmental protection and forest conservation, which happened parallel to the declaration of the estate as a forest, Tiger Sanctuary, and so on. AG’s argument that TANTEA cannot take over and the workers need to be evicted is based on two crucial points. One is the estate being declared as forest, and the other is their eligibility under the 2006 act. Although it could be a fact that it is a forest and should not be used for any industrial or domestic purpose, the fact that it remained in the hands of BBTC all these years, and the government could only take it back after the company is ready to leave sets a bad precedent. It could also send a message to the masses of this country that influential people like the BBTC can legally fight and remain in the forest for decades, whereas workers from vulnerable sections can be easily pushed out.
The declaration of the estate as a ‘Core Critical Tiger Habitat’ is another essential sub-aspect. Advocate Robert Chandrasekhar, one of the counsels in the clubbed writ petitions, hails from Manjolai. On the November 6 hearing, he submitted that there had been no reported incident of tiger-human conflict in the Manjolai region despite being declared a ‘Core Critical Tiger Habitat’. In fact, a rising number of tiger-human conflicts have been reported in other areas like the Nilgiris, where the same government hasn’t prevented high human habitation and tourism. In addition, the absence of a comprehensive afforestation plan for the Manjolai estate and the AG’s subtle hinting of an eco-tourism plan creates a strong apprehension that it might be converted into a tourist spot. With respect to OTFD protection, they were just workers and not dependent on the forest for anything; interpretation should be seen in the broader sense in consonance with another aspect, which I will come to later. Although they were indeed workers, they were present there for almost 100 years, mostly in isolation. Until they got their first bus service long after independence, their exposure was only to the factory, the forest and its resources.
The Ministry of Tribal Affairs released an FAQ on the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 which talks about the eligibility of OTFDs.
‘Can a State Government provide that persons holding any permanent or government job shall not be eligible as Other Traditional Forest Dwellers?
There is no provision in the law that forest dwellers should be solely or even primarily dependent on the forests for their livelihood, or for disqualifying persons whose family income is derived from a basket of sources. There is every likelihood that a family may be depending for its livelihood needs both on the forest rights, as well as supplement their family income through a Government job or salaried income. In fact, there are many families where one or more adult member has a salaried job requiring him to live in an urban area, while the other family members reside in the village and are sustained through intricate and sustainable relationships with the forests and forest produce.’
A simple perusal of this FAQ by the Tribal Ministry would help us better understand that despite many workers in Manjolai working in the estate, a considerable number of people in all families were not salaried. Even the wages they earned were very meagre, which led to various protests by the workers, even leading to the infamous ‘Tamirabarani Massacre’ in 1990. Apart from their work in the factory, they live in harmony and tandem with nature, possessing herbal knowledge of various plants. Their life for decades now has become very much aligned with nature, and their sudden transfer to Reddiarpetti Hills as suggested by the AG would not be fair on them. It is also revealed that they were even prohibited from using two-wheelers by the estate officers, thus rendering their lives very inconvenient in plains, let alone the fresh air and clean water.
Subscribe to Our Newsletter
Get the latest CounterCurrents updates delivered straight to your inbox.
Even from a pure labor law perspective, the VRS being forced on them and the termination of water and electricity for not signing VRS is a sheer violation of human rights. The International Standards, including the adherence to United Nations General Principles on Business and Human Rights, is not adhered. Failure to consult with workers and non-recognition of their labor unions violate fundamental labor standards. The judiciary should also take note of one another vital aspect in this case, i.e., the investigation by the independent NHRC. This case, consisting of core human rights jurisprudence on multiple fronts, surely needs the intervention by NHRC as specified in their mandate under sections 12(a) and 12(b) of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The decision on this case cannot be arrived at in a fair manner if the NHRC investigation report is not taken into account, as stated by human rights lawyer Henri Tiphagne. The conservation of forests, actions against climate change, and wildlife protection is undoubtedly not an aspect to be ignored. In fact, it needs strong consideration in this case but with solid backing by factual history and scientific evidence. Now, the court has heard everyone, and the judgment is to be delivered with a date not being given. I hope that this case, which involves forest, labor, constitutional, and human rights jurisprudence, will be well balanced by the judges and justice will be done through the awaiting verdict, which could be a potential landmark case in the Indian human rights jurisprudence.
Edgar Kaiser is a human rights lawyer working at the People’s Watch, an NGO working towards the protection of human rights of marginalized sections.
