The foundational promise of self-rule for tribal communities in Jharkhand's Scheduled Areas is facing a severe crisis. The Panchayats Extension to Scheduled Areas (PESA) Act, designed to empower local governance, is being systematically diluted by a pervasive layer of bureaucratic control. This development raises critical questions about the real autonomy of Gram Sabhas and the fate of tribal rights in the state.
The Erosion of Gram Sabha Authority
Enacted with the vision of decentralising power, the PESA Act granted Gram Sabhas significant authority over key local matters. These include the management of community resources, control over land acquisition, and the regulation of social and economic development plans. However, on the ground in Jharkhand, this authority is being consistently checked. State-level bureaucrats and officials are retaining substantive control over decision-making processes, effectively reducing the role of these village assemblies to a consultative or symbolic one.
The spirit of the law, which aimed to reverse historical injustices and empower indigenous communities through direct democracy, is being lost. Instead of autonomous self-governance, a system of bureaucratic watch has been instituted. This oversight often delays or overrides community-led initiatives, creating a disconnect between the legal framework and its practical implementation.
Systemic Hurdles and Centralised Control
The challenges are not merely procedural but systemic. Key areas where the promise of PESA is faltering include:
- Resource Management: Gram Sabhas' rights over minor water bodies, minor forest produce, and land are frequently bypassed by higher administrative orders.
- Development Projects: Plans and projects are often formulated at the state level with minimal meaningful consultation with the Gram Sabha, violating the mandatory consent clauses.
- Financial Powers: The control of funds and the approval of budgets remain largely with district and state authorities, stifling local fiscal autonomy.
This centralisation of power contradicts the very essence of PESA, which was to recognise the traditional rights and wisdom of tribal communities in governing their own habitats. The act, as noted by commentators like Sujit Kumar and Neil Tannen, is being rendered ineffective by the very structures meant to uphold it.
The Path Forward for Tribal Autonomy
The situation in Jharkhand, as of early January 2026, highlights a significant gap in India's governance model for tribal regions. The consequences of this bureaucratic stranglehold are profound. It leads to disenfranchisement, fuels discontent, and perpetuates a cycle of dependency rather than empowerment.
For the self-governance promise of PESA to be realised, a genuine devolution of power is urgently required. This involves not just delegating tasks but transferring real decision-making authority, financial control, and administrative responsibility to the Gram Sabhas. Building the capacity of these institutions and creating transparent accountability mechanisms, free from excessive bureaucratic interference, is crucial.
The ongoing scenario serves as a critical case study for other Scheduled Area states in India. It underscores that enacting progressive legislation is only the first step; its faithful and respectful implementation is the true test of a commitment to tribal autonomy and constitutional values.
