Environment · 12 Aug 2026

Forest Rights Act Agasthyamalai eviction

Consider the following statements regarding the Supreme Court's May 2026 eviction directions for the Agasthyamalai landscape:

  1. The Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve spans across Tamil Nadu and Kerala.
  2. Encroachment figures used in the case, such as 118 government servants in the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve, were generated after first verifying which occupants held pre-December 2005 residence claims under the Forest Rights Act.
  3. In the Manjolai estate case, workers were excluded from Forest Rights Act protection by classifying them as "estate employees" under a labour-law category, rather than applying the Act's residence-based eligibility test.
AOnly one
BOnly two
CAll three
DNone
This question is based on: The Supreme Court's Eviction Order and the Forest Rights Act Aren't Actually at War - the Data Behind Both Is Missing
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 12 Aug 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Supreme Court's May 2026 eviction directions for the Agasthyamalai landscape and their consequences for Manjolai estate workers denied FRA protection, drawing renewed scrutiny over how forest-dweller status has been judicially narrowed.

Why for UPSC

UPSC often tests whether aspirants can identify the precise administrative failure (missing verification) rather than assuming a general conflict between conservation law and tribal rights law.

Prelims summary

The Agasthyamalai Biosphere Reserve spans Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Eviction-related encroachment figures were never cross-checked against FRA pre-2005 residence eligibility and the Manjolai case used an "estate employee" labour-law label to sidestep the FRA's actual test.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.