Supreme Court Upholds Rule of Law While Directing Procedure to Remove Encroachments From Reserved Forests in Assam

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe heard challenges to eviction drives in multiple reserved forests in Assam and considered the State’s obligation to protect forest land while addressing long‑standing human habitation. The appeals and connected writ petitions contested eviction notices issued to residents of villages located in Doyang Reserved Forest, South Nambar, Jamuna Madunga, Barpani, Lutumai and Gola Ghat forests, where occupants claimed decades‑long residence and identity documents issued by State agencies.

The Court allowed the State to proceed with a verified, time‑limited eviction mechanism but required procedural safeguards and stayed any coercive action until those safeguards were completed. The Court accepted the State’s policy decision to constitute a committee of forest and revenue officials to issue notices, permit the occupant to produce evidence, pass a speaking order and grant a 15‑day vacate period before any removal. The Court emphasised that environmental protection must be pursued consistent with lawful process and that both environmental protection and the rule of law must co‑exist. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "At the same time, constitutional governance demands that environmental protection be pursued through lawful means. The mandate to clear the encroachments from the forest land does not authorise an arbitrary action. The Constitution does not envisage a choice between the environmental protection and the rule of law, rather, it insists that both co‑exist and reinforce each other." The Court also recorded that "The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of land in occupation of the appellants/writ petitioners till speaking order is passed and till expiry of notice period of 15 days."

Background

The dispute arose after the Assam Forest Department issued eviction notices to numerous persons whom it described as unauthorised occupants of reserved forest land notified in 1887–88. The appellants and writ petitioners claimed residence in the villages for more than seventy years and reliance on identity documents such as Aadhaar and ration cards. They challenged the notices before the Gauhati High Court on grounds of arbitrariness, breach of natural justice and absence of adjudication of claimed rights. The State produced data showing substantial encroachment—about 3,62,082 hectares or roughly 19.92% of forest area—and stated a policy objective to remove unauthorised non‑forest activities and restore forest land.

The High Court granted interim extensions and directed the State to frame regulations and issue show‑cause notices with specified time frames; those orders were itself challenged before this Court. The Solicitor General filed an additional affidavit setting out the State’s procedural plan: constitution of a committee of forest and revenue officials; issuance of notices enabling occupants to produce evidence; reference to Jamabandi registers and the Forest Rights Act, 2006 where applicable; and service of a speaking order followed by a 15‑day notice to vacate before any action. The Court found these steps constituted sufficient procedural safeguards and held that removal of encroachments must follow the prescribed fair process. The Court substituted and modified several High Court orders, kept all contentions open for the committee’s consideration, clarified that it expressed no opinion on the merits of individual claims, and disposed of the appeals and writ petitions while granting the parties the remedies available in law. There was no order as to costs.

Case Details: Case No.: 2026 INSC 140 (Non‑reportable); Civil Appeal Nos. @ SLP (C) Nos. 23647‑23648 of 2025; SLP(C) Nos. 32624/2025, 32296/2025, 32993/2025, 34412/2025, 34556/2025; W.P.(C) Nos. 1046/2025 and 65/2026. Case Title: Abdul Khalek & Others v. The State of Assam & Others Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Senior counsel for the appellants (names not specified in the judgment). For the Respondent(s): Solicitor General of India (appearing for the State); State of Assam counsel and other respondents (as recorded in the proceedings).