Supreme Court upholds Assam government's action to clear nearly 20% encroached forest land

The Supreme Court has ruled that constitutional governance demands that environmental protection should be pursued through lawful means and the mandate to clear encroachments from forest land does not authorize arbitrary action.

The bench emphasized that the Constitution does not envisage a choice between environmental protection and the rule of law, rather it insists that both coexist and reinforce each other.

The court pointed out the Constitution casts a clear and unequivocal obligation upon the state to protect forest and the environment. Article 48A, forming part of Directive Principles of State Policy, mandates that the state shall endeavor to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country.

Though Directive Principles are not enforceable by courts, they are fundamental in governance of the country and must guide the state in formulation and implementation of policy. Article 51A(g) of the Constitution imposes a fundamental duty upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests. These constitutional provisions reflect a collective responsibility on the part of citizens as well as the state to prevent, regulate and remedy environmental harm.

The court upheld the Assam government's policy decision to remove encroachment from the reserved forest, finding that it contained sufficient procedural safeguards.

A batch of civil appeals and writ petitions led by Abdul Khalek and others were filed, raising 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.

The appellants and writ petitioners were residents of several villages situated in Doyang reserved forest, South Nambar Reserved Forests, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest, Barpani Reserved Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest and Gola Ghat Forest in Assam.

They were aggrieved with the state government's eviction notices to remove them from the reserved forest. They claimed that they and their predecessors have been residing in the villages for more than seventy years and have been issued Aadhar Cards, ration cards and other identity documents by state agencies.

The state government claimed the appellants and writ petitioners have no legal right to occupy the land comprising the reserved forest, declared so in 1887 and 1888 under forest laws.

It also submitted a policy decision to remove all unauthorized encroachments from the reserved forest and to restore such lands through reforestation and conservation measures, as approximately 3,62,082 hectares of forest land was under encroachment and nearly 19.92 percent of the forest area in the state was affected.

The High Court's single and division bench declined to restrain the respondents from carrying on any eviction or coercive action.

Examining the matter, the bench said forests constitute one of the most vital natural resources of the nation. They are not merely repositories of timber or land capable of alternate use, but complex ecological systems indispensable for maintaining environmental balance. Forests regulate climate, preserve biodiversity, recharge groundwater, prevent soil erosion, and act as natural carbon sinks mitigating the adverse effects of climate change.

In a country as ecologically diverse and climatically vulnerable as India, the role of forests assumes even greater significance. Encroachment upon forest land has emerged as one of the gravest challenges confronting environmental governance in the country.

Before the apex court, the state government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said that it would constitute a committee comprising forest officials and revenue officials, which would issue notice to the alleged unauthorized occupants and give them an opportunity to adduce evidence to show that they have the right to occupy the land which is in their possession.

It further said the action for removal of encroachment would be taken only if it is found that there is an encroachment in the reserved forest area. In case the noticee is found to be within the revenue limits, outside the notified forest area, the details of the noticee shall be sent to the revenue department, which shall decide the future course of action.

If an unauthorized occupation is found in a reserved forest area, after scrutiny of the documents, a speaking order shall be passed and shall be served on the concerned person giving him 15 days notice to vacate the unauthorized occupation and only after expiry of the period of notice, the action shall be taken to remove the unauthorized occupants. Occupation of a Gaon Panchayat in a forest is permissible if there is sufficient proof as per the Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest Department or as provided under the Forest Rights Act.

Holding that the process sought to be adopted by the state government for removal of encroachment conforms to the principles of fairness, reasonableness and due process, the bench directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of land in occupation of the appellants or writ petitioners till speaking order is passed and till expiry of notice period of 15 days.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the claim of the parties, the court modified the High Court's orders and declined to entertain the writ petitions.

Case details: Abdul Khalek vs The State of Assam, decided by a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe on February 10, 2026.