After nearly three decades of delay, Jharkhand has approved the rules required to implement the Provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act, 1996 (PESA), finally providing an operational framework for tribal self-governance in the state’s Scheduled Areas.The decision, taken at a Cabinet meeting chaired by Chief Minister Hemant Soren, clears the procedural path for enforcing a central law enacted to protect the political, economic and cultural rights of tribal communities. Once formally notified, the rules are expected to give substantive authority to Gram Sabhas in matters that have historically shaped conflict and marginalisation in Jharkhand, including land, forests, mining, water resources and local development. For Jharkhand, the significance of this move extends far beyond administrative reform. The state itself was created in 2000 after decades of Adivasi mobilisation rooted in demands for autonomy, dignity and control over jal, jungle, zameen. Yet, despite having one of the largest concentrations of Scheduled Areas in India, Jharkhand remained among the states that failed to operationalise PESA for nearly twenty-five years. The approval of the rules therefore represents not merely a policy decision but a belated recognition of a constitutional commitment that has long shaped tribal politics in the region. The origins of PESA lie in India’s broader constitutional project of democratic decentralisation. The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992 marked a watershed moment by granting constitutional status to Panchayati Raj institutions through the insertion of Part IX of the Constitution. The amendment sought to deepen democracy by transferring power and responsibility to elected local bodies. However, Parliament simultaneously acknowledged that Scheduled Areas, inhabited predominantly by tribal communities, could not be governed through uniform institutional arrangements. These regions have historically experienced land alienation, displacement, forest dispossession and externally imposed development, often facilitated by legal and administrative systems that ignored customary practices and community consent. This constitutional recognition is embedded in Article 244(1) read with the Fifth Schedule, which provides for special administrative arrangements for Scheduled Areas. To ensure that decentralisation did not dilute these protections, Article 243M(4)(b) empowered Parliament to extend the provisions of Panchayati Raj to Scheduled Areas with suitable exceptions and modifications. PESA, enacted in 1996, was the legislative outcome of this mandate. It sought to ensure that decentralisation in tribal regions strengthened, rather than weakened, community authority by placing the Gram Sabha at the centre of governance. PESA was never intended to be a routine local governance law. It was conceived as a corrective constitutional instrument, designed to reverse the historical pattern of governance imposed from above. By recognising the Gram Sabha as the primary authority in Scheduled Areas, PESA aimed to protect community consent, customary rights and local control over natural resources. However, while PESA was a central law, its effective implementation depended on states framing their own rules, a responsibility that Jharkhand repeatedly deferred. The consequences of this prolonged delay were significant. In the absence of notified rules, Gram Sabha powers remained largely symbolic, while real authority continued to be exercised by administrative departments dealing with revenue, mining, forests and rural development. Decisions affecting thousands of tribal villages were often taken without meaningful community participation, leading to recurring cycles of protest, litigation and mistrust. Civil society organisations and tribal groups consistently argued that Jharkhand’s failure to implement PESA amounted to a denial of constitutionally guaranteed self-governance. Judicial scrutiny in recent years further exposed this governance vacuum. Observations by the Jharkhand High Court in cases relating to minor mineral leases, particularly sand mining, underscored the legal inconsistencies created by the absence of PESA rules. Courts increasingly questioned how leases and clearances could be granted in Scheduled Areas without Gram Sabha consent, as mandated by PESA. Against this backdrop, the approval of the rules represents a response not only to political mobilisation but also to mounting legal and constitutional pressure. Jharkhand’s Scheduled Areas extend across fifteen identified districts, either fully or partially. These include Ranchi, Khunti, Gumla, Simdega, West Singhbhum, East Singhbhum, Lohardaga and Latehar, along with parts of Palamu and Garhwa, among others. Within these districts lie hundreds of Gram Sabhas that are expected to become the fulcrum of local governance under the new rules. Villages and blocks such as Murhu and Torpa in Khunti district, Bero and Mandar in Ranchi district, Kolebira in Simdega, Chainpur in Gumla, the Manoharpur and Chaibasa belt in West Singhbhum, and Chakradharpur in East Singhbhum have long been sites of tribal assertion and community mobilisation. It is within such Gram Sabhas that the real impact of PESA will ultimately be tested. The newly approved Jharkhand PESA Rules seek to operationalise the core principles of the Act by clearly defining the authority of the Gram Sabha across key domains of governance. One of the most significant features of the rules is the recognition of one Gram Sabha for each revenue village, irrespective of Panchayat boundaries. This provision prevents the dilution of village authority and affirms the village as the foundational political unit in Scheduled Areas. The rules define the role of the Gram Sabha in land acquisition, resettlement and rehabilitation, an area that has historically been the epicentre of tribal resistance in Jharkhand. By mandating consultation and consent at the village level, the framework seeks to transform land acquisition from a unilateral administrative exercise into a negotiated democratic process. While this does not automatically halt development projects, it introduces a constitutional checkpoint that prioritises participation, accountability and transparency. Mining and mineral governance form another critical component of the rules. Jharkhand’s economy is deeply intertwined with mineral extraction, and mining projects have often proceeded with minimal local participation. The rules make Gram Sabha consent integral to decisions in mining areas, particularly in relation to minor minerals and local leases. This has the potential to alter the governance of extractive industries in Scheduled Areas by subjecting them to community oversight and scrutiny. The rules also strengthen the authority of Gram Sabhas over minor forest produce, a crucial source of livelihood for tribal households. Control over the collection, use and management of minor forest produce has long been contested, with communities frequently marginalised in favour of contractors and intermediaries. By recognising community authority in this domain, the rules align forest governance with livelihood security and local economic realities. Water resources and ecological management are also addressed within the new framework. Gram Sabhas are empowered to manage minor water bodies and local water resources, acknowledging the close relationship between community survival, agriculture and ecological stewardship in Scheduled Areas. This provision assumes particular significance in the context of climate stress, environmental degradation and declining water security.Another important aspect of the rules is the role assigned to Gram Sabhas in village level development planning. Development plans are expected to originate at the village level, shifting the locus of planning away from department driven or contractor-centric approaches towards locally defined priorities. This could improve governance outcomes by aligning public expenditure with actual needs related to health, education, drinking water, roads and livelihoods. The rules further address the persistent problem of exploitative money lending in tribal regions by assigning Gram Sabhas a role in regulating such practices. Indebtedness has historically been a pathway to land alienation and long term economic vulnerability in Scheduled Areas. Empowering Gram Sabhas in this domain reflects an attempt to address structural exploitation at the community level. The rules also acknowledge customary institutions and traditional practices, providing for their documentation and recognition, while raising important questions about how formal administrative systems will engage with living traditions. The Cabinet meeting that approved the PESA Rules also cleared thirty-nine other proposals, ranging from restructuring academic posts at Dr Shyama Prasad Mukherjee University to infrastructure projects, welfare guidelines, hostel construction in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas and amendments to recruitment rules. While these decisions reflect routine governance, PESA stands out because it reshapes the structure of authority in Scheduled Areas by redefining who has the power to make decisions. The implementation of PESA Rules in Jharkhand is likely to have wide repercussions. Mining and infrastructure projects may face deeper scrutiny at the village level, potentially slowing approvals but also reducing conflict if consent processes are transparent and meaningful. Land acquisition may become a more negotiated and accountable process, though the risk of procedural compliance without substantive participation remains. Strengthened control over minor forest produce could directly impact household incomes, provided communities receive adequate institutional support. Village led planning may improve service delivery by aligning schemes with local priorities rather than imposed agendas.