New Delhi The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the decks for the Assam government to proceed with the removal of unauthorised occupation from more than 360,000 hectares of forest land, affirming the mechanism evolved by the state to evict encroachers from reserved forests while ensuring procedural safeguards.
A bench of justices PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe underlined that encroachment on forest land has emerged as one of the gravest challenges confronting environmental governance in the country, and held that the Constitution casts a “clear and unequivocal obligation” on the State to protect forests and the environment — albeit through lawful and fair means.
“These appeals raise a question of considerable constitutional and environmental significance, namely the State’s obligation to protect reserved forest in discharge of its constitutional mandate and the manner in which such obligation must be fulfilled when long-standing human habitation is asserted within forest land,” noted the bench.
To be sure, the eviction drives that started last year had drawn sharp criticism from a section of civil society and Opposition parties on the allegations that the exercise disproportionately targeted Bengali-speaking Muslim communities living in and around forest areas. Tensions peaked in Goalpara district in July, where protests against an eviction operation turned violent, leading to alleged police firing in which a 19-year-old Muslim youth was killed and several others were injured, including security personnel.
The ruling came in a batch of appeals and writ petitions filed by residents of villages located within the Doyang, South Nambar, Jamuna Madunga, Barpani, Lutumai and Gola Ghat reserved forests in Assam. The petitioners claimed that they and their predecessors had been residing in these areas for over 70 years, and that their occupation had been tacitly acknowledged by the state through the issuance of Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other identity documents.
The Assam government, however, maintained that the land occupied by the petitioners fell squarely within reserved forests notified as early as 1887-88, and that the occupants had no legal right to remain. It placed data before the court showing that approximately 3,62,082 hectares of forest land, which is nearly 19.92% of the state’s total forest area, was under encroachment, leading to large-scale diversion of forest land for residential and agricultural use and causing serious environmental degradation.
Eviction notices issued by the forest department, which granted the occupants only seven days to vacate, were challenged before the Gauhati High Court on grounds of arbitrariness and violation of natural justice. Last year, while a single judge initially extended the deadline, a division bench later directed the state to frame regulations and issue show-cause notices granting time for explanation before eviction. Those directions were challenged before the Supreme Court.
Emphasising the ecological importance of forests, the apex court noted that forests are not merely repositories of land or timber but “complex ecological systems indispensable for maintaining environmental balance”, playing a vital role in climate regulation, biodiversity conservation, groundwater recharge and mitigation of climate change.
At the same time, the bench stressed the balance to be struck between environmental protection and the rule of law. “The Constitution does not envisage a choice between environmental protection and the rule of law; rather, it insists that both co-exist and reinforce each other,” the judgment said.
After hearing the parties, including Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the court took note of a policy framework submitted by the state outlining the procedure for eviction. Under the approved mechanism, a committee comprising forest and revenue officials will issue notices to alleged encroachers, give them an opportunity to produce documents to establish their rights, and determine whether the land in question falls within notified forest areas. If encroachment is established, a speaking order will be passed, followed by a 15-day notice period before eviction.
Where occupants are found to be outside notified forest limits but within revenue land, the matter will be referred to the revenue department for further action. The court also clarified that occupation by Gaon Panchayats within forest areas would be permissible only if supported by records such as the Jamabandi Register or under the Forest Rights Act.
Finding that the state’s proposed course of action contained “sufficient procedural safeguards”, the bench held that the mechanism conformed to principles of fairness, reasonableness and due process. The Solicitor General assured the court that the policy would be implemented objectively and fairly.
The court directed the parties to maintain status quo with respect to the land currently under occupation until a speaking order is passed and the notice period expires. It clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of individual claims, which would be examined by the committee in accordance with law.
About the Author
