PESA Act, 1996: Panchayats in Fifth Schedule Areas, Gram Sabha Powers and Implementation Gaps (UPSC Notes + PYQs)

Background: why Part IX could not simply be extended

When the 73rd Amendment created three-tier panchayats in 1992, Article 243M kept the Scheduled Areas of the Fifth Schedule outside its reach. These areas have their own customs, community resources and traditional ways of settling disputes, and a uniform panchayat model could have overridden them. Article 243M(4)(b) allowed Parliament to extend Part IX to these areas with exceptions and modifications. Parliament set up the Dilip Singh Bhuria Committee in 1994 to recommend how. Its report shaped the Panchayats (Extension to the Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996, known as PESA, which came into force on 24 December 1996. Its central idea is that the gram sabha, the assembly of all voters in a village, is the heart of self-rule, and that State laws must respect customary law, social and religious practices and traditional management of community resources.

Why a separate law

Article 243M kept Scheduled Areas out of the 73rd Amendment, because a uniform panchayat model could override customary tribal self-rule. The Dilip Singh Bhuria Committee (1995) proposed a law that respects custom and gives the village assembly real powers. Parliament passed PESA in December 1996.

Where it applies

Fifth Schedule areas in ten States: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. Sixth Schedule areas of the North-East have autonomous district councils instead.

Gram sabha powers

• Safeguard traditions, community resources and customary dispute resolution.
• Approve plans and identify beneficiaries.
• Be consulted before land acquisition and resettlement.
• Recommend before grant of leases for minor minerals.
• Ownership of minor forest produce.
• Control over money-lending, liquor sale, village markets, and restoration of alienated land.
• Seats for STs in proportion, at least half; chairpersons at all levels to be STs.

The Niyamgiri moment

In 2013 the Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment asked the gram sabhas of the Niyamgiri hills to decide whether bauxite mining would affect the Dongria Kondh’s religious and cultural rights. All twelve sabhas said no. It showed what PESA and the Forest Rights Act could mean together. The Samatha judgment (1997) had earlier barred transfer of tribal land in Scheduled Areas to private mining companies in Andhra Pradesh.

PESA and the Forest Rights Act

Why it is still weak

States were slow to frame rules: several took over two decades, and State laws on land, mining and excise often still override gram sabha consent. “Consultation” is read as a formality. Officials, not sabhas, control funds. The Ministry of Panchayati Raj has pushed model rules and training, but the gap between the text and the village is the main Mains theme.

The ten PESA States

The Fifth Schedule areas, and hence PESA, cover ten States: Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Odisha, Rajasthan and Telangana. The Sixth Schedule areas of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram are governed by Autonomous District Councils and do not fall under PESA. Each State had to amend its panchayat law within a year to bring it in line with PESA and frame rules. Several States took decades to notify rules, and in many the rules dilute powers that the Act gives to the gram sabha, for example by making consultation advisory rather than binding, or by vesting minor forest produce in State corporations. A strong answer notes that the gap is not in the central law but in State follow-through.

Fifth Schedule vs Sixth Schedule

How to frame a Mains answer

A question on PESA usually asks you to judge whether tribal self-rule has worked. Start with the constitutional logic: Scheduled Areas were kept out of Part IX to protect distinct customs, and PESA was meant to give them a stronger, not weaker, form of local democracy. Then show the gap between law and practice with three or four points: delayed State rules, consultation treated as a formality, minor forest produce controlled by State agencies, and gram sabhas with little staff or money. Use examples such as Niyamgiri, where the Supreme Court asked gram sabhas to decide on religious and cultural rights before mining clearance, and Samatha, which protected tribal land from transfer to private miners. Conclude with reforms: binding consent for land and mining decisions, funds placed directly with gram sabhas, training of village functionaries, and convergence with the Forest Rights Act and the Tribal Sub-Plan. Linking PESA with Article 21, Article 244 and the idea of Gram Swaraj gives the answer depth.

Pesa Act: UPSC angle

Pesa Act UPSC PYQs (Prelims)

Questions UPSC has actually asked, from the official papers. Pick an option to check yourself.

Mains PYQs on this topic

No UPSC Mains question from 2023-2026 is directly on this topic. Older papers (2013-2022) will be added as the Mains bank grows.

Quick quiz

FAQs

Study next: Panchayati Raj · Fundamental Rights · Social justice

Spotted an error? Tell us. We correct within 48 hours.

Image: Shashank Deora, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0