Author : Nidhi ranka from St Joseph’s College of Law
“The Sedentary Bias: A Legal Analysis of Residential Rights and the De Facto Criminalization of Nomadic Tribes in India.”
1.ABSTRACT
The legal frameworks in India are largely based on the idea of fixed residence where access to land,housing and welfare benefits depends on ownership,documentation and permanent address. This creates a major challenge for Denotified Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (DNTs) whose traditional lifestyle is based on mobility rather than settlement.Residential rights are guaranteed by constitutional articles including Article 21, which grants the right to life and shelter; Article 19(1)(d), which grants freedom of movement; and Article 19(1)(e), which grants the right to live and shelter An important question arises as to whether these rights are meaningfully accessible to nomadic communities in practice. This paper examines the gap between legal recognition and actual implementation focusing on how administrative procedures such as registration systems,identity documentation and eligibility criteria in welfare schemes exclude DNTs. It also analyzes and act like the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) 2006 and schemes like the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana that, although granting housing and habitation rights, are unable to accommodate nomadic people. In order to ensure that DNTs’ residential rights are effectively realized, it concludes by raising concerns about whether the current legal and administrative systems can be reorganized to accommodate nomadic lifestyles. It also recommends the need for flexible documentation, inclusive housing policies, and focused administrative mechanisms.
Keywords: Marginalized, Fixed Address, Documentation, Administrative Procedure, Mobility-Based Citizenship, DNT Rights,Criminal tribe
2. INTRODUCTION
India is home to one of the most diverse populations of nomadic semi-nomadic and denotified communities anywhere in the world. Denotified Tribes refers to those groups that were classified as born criminals under the Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 during the colonial period and its subsequent amendments.Although these communities were denotified in 1952 after gaining independence, the stigma linked to them has continued through generations. Nomadic Tribes are groups whose traditional lifestyles involve constant or seasonal movement to seek livelihoods through pastoral grazing, trade, or performance. Semi-Nomadic Tribes maintain a pattern of partial mobility often combining settled agriculture with seasonal migration.The Banjara and Lambadi groups in central and southern India, the Pardhi and Phase Pardhi of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh, the Nat and Bedia performers from northern India, the Korava and Yerukala communities in the south, and pastoral communities like the Rabari and Bharwad from Gujarat are among them. Cattle herding, salt trade, acrobatics, snake charming, and traditional medical methods are some of the ways they make a living. Their livelihoods vary from cattle herding and salt trading to acrobatics, snake charming, and traditional healing practices. What binds them is not a single culture or language but a shared experience of marginalisation stemming in their mobile or formerly criminalised status.
The National Commission for Denotified Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes, established in 2005 and led by Justice Balkrishna Sidram Renke, estimated that around 150 million individuals belong to these communities across India. However, despite their large numbers, they are among the most Invisible, Neglected and marginalized groups within the country’s socio-economic framework.The Renke Commission found that 89 percent of denotified tribes and 98 percent of nomadic tribes reported that none of the families in their community owned any land.This landlessness is not accidental but structurally rooted in centuries of displacement and legal exclusion.
2.1 Historical Background
2.1.1 Precolonial status of nomadic tribes in India
Before British colonial rule, nomadic and semi-nomadic communities held a recognized, though marginal, place in the Indian social and economic structure. Many of these groups provided essential services to settled agricultural populations. Pastoralists offered dairy products and wool. Wool and dairy products were provided by pastoralists. Traveling storytellers and performers brought entertainment, culture, and news to different parts of the country. Rural communities were served by traditional ironworkers and healers.T Their mobility was viewed as a legitimate and necessary way of life within a diverse economy. The British colonial administration took a fundamentally different approach to governance. It emphasized stability, classification, and direct control. The colonial state needed to collect revenue, maintain order, and mobilize labor. . Nomadic populations who moved across administrative boundaries resisted census classification and evaded direct taxation were seen as inherently problematic. Their mobility was interpreted not as a rational economic strategy but as a threat to colonial order.
2.2.2 Colonial governance and control
The position of these communities significantly transformed during the colonial period. The British administration established an efficient system of territorial governance, revenue collection, and population control, which was largely based on the assumption of permanent settlement. Communities that followed mobile lifestyles were often identified as difficult to regulate and monitor. Consequently, colonial authorities viewed nomadic populations with suspicion and considered their mobility inconsistent with administrative procedures of territorial control and population surveillance. This concept evolved in the act such as of the Criminal Tribes act, 1871, which classified these tribes as “criminal by birth” and subjected them to registration, surveillance, movement restrictions, and forced settlement.Although,the Act was repealed after Independence and these communities were officially denotified in 1952, but the social stigma and administrative suspicion associated with them did not disappear. Instead, many of these communities continued to face discrimination through subsequent legal mechanisms and policing practices.
2.2.3 Post Independence
After India’s independence in 1947, the new government had to decide how to handle the Criminal Tribes Act and the communities it had designated. The Act was officially repealed in August 1949 in a progressive process, and by 1952 all criminal tribes had been denotified ,that is the state no longer regarded them as hereditary criminals. However this legal modification was just the start of a protracted process to repair the harm.There was no significant rehabilitation program for denotification.The economic reintegration of these communities into mainstream society was not supported by the government. There were no arrangements for employment, land, or education.The stigma did not disappear from public consciousness. Even today news reports periodically surface about ex-criminal tribe individuals being beaten by mobs or paraded as thieves on mere suspicion.
3. CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS
The Constitution of India adopted in 1950 contains several provisions that are directly relevant to the residential rights of denotified nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes. These provisions reflect the framers commitment to social justice equality and the dignity of the individual. Yet as this chapter will demonstrate the promise of these constitutional guarantees remains largely unrealised for DNT communities.
3.1.CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION
3.1.1 Article 14: Right to Equality
Article 14 of the Constitution provides that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within India .This provision is essential for the protection of DNTs because it prohibits state from arbitrary discrimination . The principle of equality before the law means that all persons regardless of their caste, tribe or historical status are entitled to equal treatment by the legal system. The equal protection of the laws however permits reasonable classification. The state may differentiate between groups if the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.The challenge for DNTs is that the classification system used by state is such as the divide into Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, often fail to capture the specific vulnerabilities of denotified and nomadic communities.Despite being categorized as SC or ST, many DNTs do not receive special privileges due to the added burden of forced criminalization that they carry. Others fall outside these categories entirely and are denied affirmative action altogether.
3.1.2 Article 19(1)(d) and 19(1)(e): Freedom of Movement and Residence
Every citizen of India under Article 19(1)(d) have the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. Article 19(1)(e) also ensures the right to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India. These provisions are of particular significance to nomadic and semi-nomadic communities whose way of life depends on mobility. Freedom of movement is not merely about physical movement. It includes the right to choose one’s place of residence, the right to migrate for employment and the right to maintain a mobile livelihood. This right is crucial to the economic survival and cultural identity of pastoralists who follow seasonal grazing routes , traders who travel between markets, and entertainers who travel between towns and villages.
However these rights are subject to reasonable restrictions under clauses (5) and (6) of Article 19. The state may impose restrictions in the interests of the general public and for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe. While these restrictions are necessary for public order they have often been used to justify policies that effectively criminalise nomadism. For example,The Habitual Offenders Act limits the mobility of certain people and mandates that they report to police stations. Such restrictions violate Article 19(1)(d) and (e) when they are applied disproportionately to nomadic populations. The interpretation of these constitutional rights demonstrates the sedentary bias of Indian law . Administrators and courts have a tendency to interpret the right to reside means the right to reside in a fixed permanent dwelling. The needs of mobile populations have not been adequately considered. There is no recognition in law of the right to temporary or seasonal residence, the right to camp or the right to use common lands for grazing and resting.
3.1.3 Article 21 and Right to Shelter
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ensures that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law and this is expanded by judicial interpretation; it also includes the right to live with human dignity. In Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) The Court held that livelihood is one of the components of the right to life and that deprivation of livelihood means deprivation of life, which has a direct impact on the rights of nomadic and denotified tribes. In the case of Chameli Singh v State of UP (1995)The Supreme Court recognized shelter as one of the necessities of life and held that there was a constitutional mandate on the State to construct affordable houses for the poor. Therefore the right to life includes the right to shelter.
4. Legislative Framework
4.1.1 The Criminal Tribes Act 1871 and What Followed
Even after repeal in 1949, the Criminal Tribes Act led to a lasting stigma being attached to some groups and communities in police records, educational institutions, and public discussion. The registers created under the CTA continued to be maintained; the designation of ‘criminal tribe’ only changed to ‘denotified tribe’ without doing away with harassment and suspicion.
4.1.2 The Forest Rights Act 2006
The FRArecognizes 13 kinds of rights belonging to forest dwellers under sec 3(1) .for nomadic tribes and pastoral tribes sec 3(1)(d) provides grazing and seasonal access rights and sec 3(1)(a) Habitation rights are important .However, as of 2025, many claims of nomadic tribes have been rejected by the government, often arbitrarily. For nomadic groups and communities, establishing their residency in the forest continuously despite being seasonal migrants, complying with a deadline of 2005, and providing documentary proof have proven impossible. An eviction order passed against those whose claims were rejected in Wildlife First v Union of India (2019) is stayed but still pending.
4.1.3 The Habitual Offenders Act 1952
Post-independence, several states enacted Habitual Offenders Acts which, although impartial in language, were used to carry forward the CTA system by branding the same communities with new labels. The Renke and Idate Commissions have recommended that these Acts should be repealed but in 2025, many states still have Habitual Offender Registers. Under the Act, there exists a cycle whereby registration triggers an arrest, convictions perpetuate the process of registration and criminal records render certain groups and communities ineligible for housing and employment programs.
4.1.4 PMAY & the SEED Scheme
The SEED scheme (Scheme for economic empowerment of Denotified,Nomadic and Semi-nomadic tribes) provides housing facilities to DNT/SNT groups and communities through PMAY-G (Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana gramin) and PMAY-U((Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana urban ) and in addition, health insurance facilities and educational coaching services. However, the SEED scheme has preconditions for these benefits which include proof of address, ID proofs and land titles none of which nomadic groups can satisfy. SEED itself recognizes that the groups and communities are ‘mostly invisible, thinly spread and many migrating but no mechanism has been put in place to counter the problem of circularity.
4.1.5 The National Commission for DNT NT and SNT Bill 2026
The National Commission for DNT NT and SNT Bill aims at creating a statutory commission that investigates complaints, reviews policies, and recommends welfare policies. The previous Commissions, namely Renke and Idate commissions did not have any statutory backing and their recommendations did not find full implementation. While creation of such a statutory organization would be a huge step ahead, its effectiveness will depend upon financial and political will.
4.2 Sedentary Bias in Indian law
4.2.1 Requirement of Fixed Address
Almost every administrative function, including ration cards, voting rights, opening bank accounts, getting government jobs, and welfare entitlements require a fixed address. For nomads, having a fixed address is not only difficult, it is discriminatory. It makes nomads invisible in the census data, voter lists, and welfare entitlement database.
4.2.2 Requirement for Land Ownership
The FRA generally requires proof of land occupation while PMAY generally requires land for habitation. According to the Renke Commission ,89% of denotified tribes and 98% of nomadic tribes have no ownership of land which is a historical fact brought about by CTA’s confiscations, forest acts which have changed grazing grounds to government lands, and demolition of urban areas. The land requirement therefore adds historical dispossession to current exclusion.
4.2.3 Requirements for Identity Documents
To access any service from the government requires a series of identity documents with each requiring other documents to prove. The nomadic tribes and communities do not have birth certificates, educational documents, bills, and rental agreements. In the surveys conducted in 9,000 households in 36 states and UTs by the IdateCommission, the absence of identity documents was the most common problem experienced.
5. JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ON RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS AND DIGNITY
The Supreme Court has laid down elaborate jurisprudence on the right to shelter, means of livelihood and protection from arbitrary eviction, giving a solid constitutional base to residential rights of DNTs.
5.1 Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)
It was held that the right to life guaranteed in Art. 21 includes the right to livelihood – deprivation of livelihood is deprivation of life. Although allowing eviction after following the procedure which is fair, just and reasonable, the principle laid down in this case can be directly applied to nomadic tribes and communities, because eviction from temporary camps, grazing lands and forest clearings would amount to not only deprivation of shelter but also of their entire life.
5.2 Chameli Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1995)
It was conclusively decided that the right to shelter is integral to Article 21, which means that this right includes the requirement of adequate living space, secure construction, safe surroundings, sunlight, air, water, sanitation and civic facilities. The inability of the government to provide shelter to members of DNTs living in tents without facilities is more than a failure of policy; it is a breach of their rights under the Constitution.
5.3 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1996)
Although it was held that no essential right exists which justifies the use of public lands, the Court ruled that it is the positive obligation of the state to ensure adequate shelter to vulnerable citizens and eviction of people without rehabilitation infringes upon their livelihood rights. It was directed that the Corporation should give a chance to the petitioners to apply for available housing schemes. The case for nomadic tribes and displaced communities is stronger than that of pavement dwellers in Ahmedabad.
5.4 Orissa Mining Corporation v Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013)
In the case relating to Niyamgiri and Vedanta, the Court recognized the habitat, cultural, and community rights of tribal communities, directing that the Gram Sabha decide if the proposed bauxite mining operation would affect any FRA rights. All Gram Sabhas opposed the project. This judgment is pertinent to DNTs in that it recognizes that the rights of tribal communities are collective rights to habitat and culture and not just property rights.
5.5 Wildlife First v Union of India (2019)
This challenge by conservation NGOs to the constitutionality of the FRA took place in 2019. On 13 February 2019, the Court ordered 21 states to evict all persons who had their FRA applications rejected affecting more than 1.1 million forest dwellers. The eviction was however halted on 28 February 2019 after protests nation-wide; the matter is still pending in court. It has been found that around 65 percent of the rejected claims have forests from before 2005, indicating that many such rejection orders may be wrongful.
6. THE CONTINUING CRIMINALISATION AND RESIDENTIAL EXCLUSION OF NOMADIC TRIBES : A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
6.1 The Legacy of the Criminal Tribes Act
The aftermath of the CTA exists in public perception and law enforcement and social exclusion. In any crime, the first people who are suspected are from the DNT community. The stereotypical views imposed upon them by the British have been embedded in society’s subconscious mind. This leads to social isolation in that they are not offered housing or living among other communities.
6.2 The Habitual Offenders Act and Continuing Surveillance
The move from CTA to HOA is not a departure from the past but an ongoing process with a new name. Ex-criminal tribe families’names continue to be recorded in police stations ,young men are constantly interrogated and their movements observed. Even after multiple reports from commissions, states continue to have such laws and accompanying surveillance, which creates a state of fear such that communities do not establish themselves.
6.3 Sedentary Bias and Exclusion from Welfare Schemes
The institutional framework of the welfare state is designed keeping in mind settled populations. Ration cards necessitate fixed addresses, voters’ lists are created for fixed constituencies, schools operate in villages while health centers have fixed catchment areas. People who shift every three months cannot maintain a ration card; a child who follows the route of pastoralists on a seasonal basis cannot go to school; a sick person living in the forest can neither visit a health center. The officials perceive the issue of nomadism as one of problem-solving instead of right-protection, thus advocating for sedentary solutions in conflict with Article 19(1)(e)
6.4 Exclusion from Welfare and Housing Schemes
The PMAY requires land ownership which excludes almost all nomads from benefitting from it. SEED replicates the same exclusionary measures by PMAY. No provision has been made in any of the two schemes regarding the construction of portable/temporary houses. The Renke Commission discovered that children of such communities who are trying to repay loans earned through education are at an all-time low point.
6.5 Forced Eviction and Residential Insecurity
Nomadic camps and temporary shelters would always fall into the”unauthorized” category, thus making them vulnerable to demolition without prior notice, without a hearing and without rehabilitation. Forced evictions are common practices in Tamil Nadu (Dharmapuri), Jammu and Kashmir and throughout forest areas classified as tiger reserves/national parks.
6.6 Legal Implications
The systematic denial of rights of DNT groups and communities includes violation of the following articles of the Constitution , Article 14 (discrimination indirectly caused by the neutral law); Article 19 (1)(e) (restrictions of movement and residence and demolition of settlement) and Article 21 (shelter, livelihood and dignity). Despite the developed article 21 jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, these rights were never guaranteed in practice as far as shelter is concerned.
6.7 Ethical and Human Rights Issues
Stigmatizing entire communities as criminals from birth takes away the ability of the person to act ethically and imposes civil disabilities on a hereditary basis. This systemic discrimination against an estimated 150 million people keeps alive a cycle of poverty that can be solved by no individual effort. Forced settlement is not only displacement; it erases unique cultures, language, ways of knowledge generation, and interaction with the environment. A Rabari nomad forced into living in slums is no longer a Rabari.
6.8 Gap between Constitutional Rights and Realities
The DNT experience in India is the gap between constitutional rights and realities on the ground. Not just inefficient implementation, this is a structural problem, a result of the sedentary bias of the state. Governing institutions starting from the panchayat up to the Supreme Court are designed for sedentary people. They cannot count, record, tax or service mobile people. DNT communities therefore find themselves legally but not politically in a state of anarchy.
7. CONCLUSION
This study has examined the residential rights of denotified nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes in India through a socio-legal perspective . The findings can be summarised as follows. First the historical legacy of the Criminal Tribes Act 1871 continues to shape the present-day experience of DNT communities. The stigma of inherited criminality has not disappeared with the legal repeal. It persists in police practices, social attitudes and administrative procedures. Second, the constitutional framework provides strong protections for residential rights. Articles 14, 19 and 21 together guarantee equality, freedom of movement and the right to shelter. The Supreme Court has interpreted these provisions expansively in cases like Olga Tellis, Chameli Singh and Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
Third, the legislative framework including the Forest Rights Act 2006 the SEED scheme and the proposed National Commission Bill provides important tools for the protection of DNT rights. However, these tools are undermined by implementation failures and structural barriers. Fourth the sedentary bias of Indian law and policy systematically excludes mobile populations from citizenship rights. Fixed address requirements, land ownership requirements and documentation barriers create an exclusion that renders DNT communities invisible to the state. Fifth forced eviction and residential insecurity are widespread. Temporary settlements are not recognised as legitimate forms of residence. Forest-dwelling communities face displacement for conservation projects. Urban nomads are treated as encroachments.
The condition of denotified nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes in India represents one of the most persistent and neglected human rights challenges in the country. These communities numbering in the millions have been rendered invisible by a state that cannot see beyond its sedentary assumptions. They have been criminalised by a colonial law that was repealed seven decades ago but whose spirit lives on. They have been excluded from the most basic rights of citizenship by administrative barriers .The path forward requires not merely policy reform but a fundamental rethinking of the relationship between the state and mobile populations. It requires the recognition that citizenship is not conditional on settlement. It requires the acceptance that mobility is a legitimate way of life. It requires the understanding that dignity is not something that can only be enjoyed in a permanent brick house. The Constitution of India promises justice, social, economic and political to all its citizens. The sedentary bias must be overcome. The right to reside must be made real for all Indians regardless of whether they live in a house, a tent or under the open sky.
8.Reference
1.Article 14,Constitution of India , Act of 1950
2.Article 19(1)(d),Constitution of India , Act of 1950
3..Article 19(1)(e),Constitution of India , Act of 1950
4. SEC 3,The Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers(recognition of Forest Rights Act ,2006,Act 2 of 2007
5.The Habitual offender Act ,1952
6.The Criminal Offender Act ,1871,act repealed
7. National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes, Report of the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (Renke Commission),Government of India, 2008
8.National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes, Report of the National Commission for Denotified, Nomadic and Semi-Nomadic Tribes (Idate Commission),Government of India, 2018
9.Nomadic Tribes (Idate Commission), Government of India,2018,Criminalizing Tribes Series, Social and Political Research Foundation, SPRF, 2024
10.Ishaan Ranjan and Anay Pruthy ,The Criminal Tribes Act of 1871 and its Global Legacy,oask publication , August 12, 2025
11.Haldia Government College, Denotified Tribes in India: Study Material, Haldia Government College.
12.Dr. Manoj Sharma ,Denotified Tribes in India: A Sociological Study ,International Journal of social impact,September 2025
13.https://irac.in/tamil-nadu-forcible-eviction-of-tribal-families-in-dharmapuri-district/ , last dated on June 16,2026
14.https://www.survivalinternational.org/news/14199 ,last dated on June 16,2026
15.Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985) 3 SCC 545
16.Chameli Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh (1995) 15 SCC 468
17.Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v Nawab Khan Gulab Khan (1996)
18.Orissa Mining Corporation v Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013)
19.Wildlife First v Union of India Writ Petition (Civil) No 109 of 2008