PESA rules in Jharkhand: Empowerment promise or administrative control?

The notification of rules under the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 in Jharkhand, nearly three decades after the Central law came into force, has triggered a sharp political and constitutional debate over tribal self-governance, administrative control and the real authority of Gram Sabhas in Fifth Schedule areas.

The state government has projected the move as a long-pending corrective step to empower tribal communities through legally recognised Gram Sabhas. Opposition parties and sections of tribal leadership, however, argue that while the rules have finally been notified, their content raises serious questions about whether the spirit of PESA has been preserved or diluted.

Advertisement

PESA was enacted to extend constitutional decentralisation to Scheduled Areas by recognising traditional tribal institutions and granting Gram Sabhas decisive powers over land, forests, minor minerals, local dispute resolution and development decisions. Jharkhand, despite its significant tribal population and extensive Fifth Schedule regions, remained without notified rules for years, drawing criticism from rights groups and repeated judicial scrutiny.

Critics, including former chief ministers Arjun Munda and Champai Soren, have accused the government of diluting the constitutional primacy of the Gram Sabha. They contend that the rules vest substantial authority with the district administration, particularly the Deputy Commissioner, including recognition of traditional village boundaries and routing of Gram Sabha resolutions to the state government. According to them, this shifts the balance of power away from community institutions towards the bureaucracy.

The opposition has also raised concerns that the rules stop short of granting Gram Sabhas effective control over land acquisition, mining leases, forest produce and water resources. They argue that consent, as envisaged under the 1996 Act, risks being reduced to a procedural formality rather than a binding community decision.

The ruling coalition has rejected these charges, maintaining that the notification finally provides a clear legal framework for Gram Sabha functioning in Scheduled Areas. The government says the rules formally recognise traditional leadership systems and incorporate customary practices while ensuring administrative coordination. It has also pointed out that previous governments failed to notify PESA rules altogether despite long tenures in office.

Chief Minister Hemant Soren and leaders of the ruling alliance have described the opposition’s criticism as politically motivated, arguing that stricter Gram Sabha oversight under PESA would curtail arbitrary land and mining decisions that benefited vested interests in the past.

Significantly, unease over the rules has also emerged beyond party lines. Some tribal leaders and former administrators have flagged differences between earlier draft versions and the final notification, calling for greater clarity on how customary law, traditional institutions and modern administrative structures will interact on the ground.

The unfolding controversy highlights the broader challenge of implementing PESA in letter and spirit. While Jharkhand has finally notified the rules, their credibility will depend on how they are enforced in practice. Whether Gram Sabhas emerge as genuine centres of decision-making or remain constrained by administrative oversight will ultimately determine if PESA becomes a transformative instrument of tribal self-governance or a contested legal framework in the state.