Environmental Protection Must Be Pursued Through Lawful Means: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Tribal Community In Assam Reserved Forests

The bench held that the State carries a constitutional obligation to protect and restore reserved forests, however, such environmental enforcement cannot be through force, overriding principles of fairness, due process, and the rule of law, particularly where long-standing human habitation is asserted within forest land.

The judgment came in a batch of civil appeals and writ petitions concerning eviction drives in several reserved forests in Assam, including Doyang, South Nambar, Jamuna Madunga, Barpani, Lutumai and Golaghat forest areas.

Referring to the statutory framework under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, a bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that any action concerning eviction from forest land must remain subject to the recognition and determination of rights under the said enactment. “…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 bench observed.

Senior Advocates Manish Goswami, Huzefa Ahmadi, Chander Uday Singh, Rauf Rahim appeared for the appellants and Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Chinmoy Sharma, Senior A.A.G appeared for the respondents.

The appellants, in the matter were residents of villages situated within the reserved forest areas, who claimed that they and their predecessors had been residing there for over seventy years. They contended that their existence had been recognized by State authorities through issuance of Aadhaar cards, ration cards, and other identity documents.

The State Government, however, asserted that the lands were notified as reserved forests as early as 1887–1888 and that the occupants were unauthorized encroachers.

It placed statistical data before the Court indicating that approximately 3,62,082 hectares of forest land, nearly 19.92% of Assam’s forest area, was under encroachment, leading to severe ecological degradation.

Eviction notices were issued directing occupants to vacate within seven days, prompting writ petitions before the Gauhati High Court. Interim orders were passed extending time and directing issuance of show cause notices.

Now the Supreme Court while framing the issue as one of “considerable constitutional and environmental significance", reiterated that Article 48A of the Constitution of India obligates the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and Article 51A(g) Constitution of India imposes a fundamental duty upon citizens to protect the natural environment.

However, the Court made it clear that the mandate to clear encroachments does not authorize arbitrary action, since environmental protection and rule of law must co-exist and reinforce each other.

During the hearing, the Solicitor General placed an additional affidavit detailing a structured mechanism for eviction, which says:

-A committee of forest and revenue officials would examine claims.

-Notice would be issued to alleged encroachers.

-Occupants would be given opportunity to produce documentary proof.

-If unauthorized occupation is established, a speaking order would be passed.

-A 15-day notice period would be granted before eviction.

-Persons recorded in the Jamabandi Register (forest villages) or holding rights under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 would not be treated as unauthorized occupants.

The Court noted that even within Gaon Panchayat areas situated inside reserved forests, only those with legally recognized rights could remain; others would be liable to eviction following due procedure. On finding that the revised mechanism contained sufficient procedural safeguards, the Court accepted the State’s framework.

Accordingly, the earlier High Court orders were substituted and modified in line with the Supreme Court’s directions.

Cause Title: Abdul Khalek & Ors. v. The State Of Assam & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 140]

Appellants: Manish Goswami, Sr. Adv., Anasuya Choudhury, AOR, Boidurjyamani Deka, Shameen Yaser, Mridunil M Kashyp, Sudha Pradhan, Wajeeh Shafiq, AOR, Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Rauf Rahim, Sr. Adv. Chander Uday Singh, Sr. Adv., Adeel Ahmed, AOR, Gias Uddin, Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Ali Rahim, Katyayani Suhurd, Nekib Zaman Choudhury, Arif Mir, Nasim Akram, Mohsin Rahim, Nesim Akram Barbhuyan, Ratnadeep Shravasti, Nekibur Zaman Choudhury, Aamir Hussain, Adv. Mr. Ratnadeep Shraswati, Nasim Akram Mazarbhuiya, Rashmi Singh, Bidya Mohanty, Aamir Hussain, Shehnaz Laskar, Azizul Hoque, Aamir Husain, Ratnadeep Shrawasti, Adv. Mr. Md Ghouse Muddin Khan, Abhishek Kalaiyarasan, Farha Naaz, Taqdees Fatima, Advocates.

Respondents: Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Chinmoy Sharma, Sr. A.A.G., Shuvodeep Roy, AOR, Diksha Rai, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Digvijay Dam, Vijay Deora, Medha Pushkarna, Advocates.