Three decades on, PESA struggles to deliver tribal self-governance

Nearly 30 years after it was enacted to strengthen tribal self-governance, the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA) remains unevenly implemented across India’s Fifth Schedule Areas, exposing a widening gap between constitutional promise and administrative practice.

PESA was enacted to strengthen democracy in tribal areas by recognising the authority of Gram Sabhas, protecting customary traditions and ensuring community control over local resources. Fifth Schedule Areas extend across ten states — Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Gujarat, Rajasthan and Jharkhand. For the purposes of the PESA, these regions include 45 fully covered districts and 63 partially covered districts, covering 663 blocks, 22,141 Gram Panchayats and 77,564 villages. 

The Act was designed to make Gram Sabhas the foundation of local governance in Scheduled Areas. It provides for community control over minor forest produce, minor minerals, minor water bodies and community forest resources. It seeks to prevent tribal land alienation, safeguard customary practices and cultural heritage, regulate intoxicants, and ensure that communities participate in decisions related to land acquisition and development programmes. Nearly three decades later, however, it remains weakened and inoperative despite its transformative vision.

Recent national discussions at a workshop organised by the National Institute of Rural Development & Panchayat Raj (NIRD&PR) show that progress in framing PESA Rules varies across states. Maharashtra notified its rules in 2014; Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh framed rules in 2011 (later adopted by Telangana in 2016); Gujarat issued rules in 2017 and revised them in 2022; Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh notified rules in 2022; and Jharkhand notified its rules only in January 2026. Odisha is yet to finalise its rules.

This uneven progress, even in the legislative arena, reflects differences in political priority, administrative preparedness and clarity about the role of Gram Sabhas. Even where rules exist, they remain inoperative due to the absence of coordination across departments, adequate training of officials and institutional alignment.

Common structural challenges

In many Scheduled Areas, awareness of Gram Sabha powers remains limited. Tribal communities do not have clear information about their rights related to minor forest produce, land protection, customary governance and natural resource management. Capacity gaps also exist among Panchayati Raj representatives and frontline officials, who do not necessarily fully understand PESA provisions.

State laws are not harmonised with PESA provisions. Laws related to land, forests, mining, excise and revenue often conflict with or dilute Gram Sabha authority. Departmental rules sometimes override community decisions unlawfully, creating confusion and weakening self-governance.

Line departments frequently bypass mandatory Gram Sabha consultations. Development planning continues to be driven by departments rather than communities, reducing participation. Gram Sabha resolutions are often treated as procedural formalities rather than binding decisions, and in some cases are even altered.

Operational gaps further weaken implementation. These include inadequate training at all levels, poor record maintenance, lack of management information systems and weak coordination among departments. In some cases, Gram Sabha decisions are overridden due to bureaucratic delays, political pressure or competing development priorities.

Despite legal protections, weak enforcement allows the diversion of tribal land, extraction of minor minerals and exploitation of forest resources without meaningful community consent, leading to erosion of trust.

Contemporary pressures and institutional erosion

Administrative systems are not required to understand customary governance systems. Traditional institutions that once ensured social regulation and ecological balance are weakening due to mining expansion, land acquisition, displacement, migration and demographic change. Development interventions implemented without cultural sensitivity disrupt community cohesion and traditional leadership.

As a result, a gap has emerged between the legal promise of PESA and realities on the ground. While the Act promotes community consensus, ecological balance and cultural continuity, actual governance often remains centralised and resource-driven.

Consultation vs consent: A critical legal issue

A recurring problem in implementation is confusion between consultation and consent, especially in matters such as land acquisition, diversion of forests for non-forestry activities, excavation of minor minerals and establishment of liquor outlets in Scheduled Areas. In practice, administrative authorities often do not obtain Gram Sabha consent and may not even conduct meaningful consultation, treating the process as a mere formality requiring only paperwork. This allows decisions to proceed even when Gram Sabhas object. Such interpretations weaken community authority and reduce the role of Gram Sabhas in decision-making.

When consent is reduced to consultation or to a procedural formality, communities lose meaningful control over natural resources and social regulation. This undermines PESA, which seeks to empower Gram Sabhas as primary decision-making bodies.

Constitutional status and legal framework

Section 4 of PESA begins with a non obstante clause and requires state legislatures to ensure that laws applicable in Scheduled Areas conform to the central Act. PESA derives its authority from Article 243M of the Constitution and is considered a constitutional extension of Part IX, tailored to the socio-cultural realities of tribal areas.

The Act deals with subjects that fall within the State List—such as land, excise, agriculture, markets, money lending and socio-economic planning. Therefore, states must harmonise sectoral laws with the principles of tribal self-governance.

Section 4(o) further states that states should endeavour to follow the Sixth Schedule pattern when designing district-level administrative arrangements in Scheduled Areas. None of these ten states has incorporated this vital provision, which alone would enable Gram Sabhas to function as required under PESA. Simply put, Gram Sabhas can exercise their powers and responsibilities only if the structures above them also possess the authority to allow them to function freely. At present, the Panchayat structures above them do not have such governing powers and, in fact, remain under the control of bureaucratic government departments, functioning as extensions of these departments.

The Sixth Schedule pattern would free the district structure from departmental control and instead bring these departments under its governance authority. The refusal of all these states to incorporate the Sixth Schedule pattern has effectively rendered Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas ornamental and nominal, similar to the often non-functional Gram Sabhas outside Scheduled Areas.

PESA touches multiple subjects administered by different departments, many of which operate outside the Panchayati Raj system. Mining, excise regulation, land administration, forest governance, markets and money lending are handled by sectoral departments with independent mandates.

Without coordinated legal harmonisation and administrative alignment, this fragmentation allows departments to bypass Gram Sabha authority. Sectoral priorities often override community decisions, weakening the integrated governance model envisioned under PESA.

The Union Ministry of Panchayati Raj has recently renewed its focus on PESA implementation through national workshops, the development of training manuals, stakeholder consultations, PESA Utsavs, maintenance of the e-GramSwaraj portal, documentation of best practices and performance scorecards. These initiatives aim to build awareness, strengthen capacity and encourage states to improve implementation.

However, their success will depend on sustained political commitment, legal reforms and grassroots capacity-building.

PESA is not merely an administrative law; it represents constitutional recognition of tribal aspirations for self-rule, cultural continuity and stewardship over Jal, Jungle and Jameen. It seeks to harmonise modern democratic systems with traditional governance rooted in consensus, ecological responsibility and community accountability. It is the first law on democracy and governance in the country to introduce community self-governance. It is also the forerunner to extending community self-governance beyond Scheduled Areas into forested regions across the country.

By empowering Gram Sabhas and recognising customary practices, PESA promotes political participation, economic self-reliance, cultural revitalisation and social cohesion. Its true strength lies in enabling communities to shape their own development.

The role of Gram Sabhas in Scheduled Areas under PESA is reinforced by other central laws such as the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. These laws recognise Gram Sabha authority in the recognition of forest rights, forest governance and in granting consent for land acquisition as well as rehabilitation and resettlement, thereby strengthening community participation and protection of tribal livelihoods.

Power to the Gram Sabha

Nearly three decades after its enactment, PESA remains a powerful yet constrained instrument of democratic decentralisation and community self-governance. Its implementation challenges are not only administrative but also structural, legal and political.

The key question is whether governance in Scheduled Areas will remain department-driven and extractive, or evolve into a community-centred model rooted in democracy, constitutional values and cultural integrity.

Real progress lies in development that preserves identity and strengthens community institutions. Empowered Gram Sabhas can deepen democracy, protect ecological heritage and ensure that development in Scheduled Areas is participatory, dignified and sustainable. The promise of PESA remains strong; fulfilling it requires political will, administrative reform and respect for India’s indigenous governance traditions.

Palla Trinadha Rao is a practicing lawyer and tribal rights activist. Views expressed are the author’s own and don’t necessarily reflect those of Down To Earth.