Supreme Court Indicates Committee-Based Review of Assam Eviction Cases; Gauhati High Court Order to Be Modified

The Supreme Court of India on Monday orally indicated that the impugned orders of the Gauhati High Court in the Assam forest eviction matters would require modification, with the Court proposing a committee-based mechanism to examine eviction cases.

During the hearing of a batch of Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) arising out of eviction drives in Assam, the bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that a uniform and mechanical approach to eviction would not be appropriate, particularly where claims of long-standing residence, village recognition, and statutory protections are raised.

The bench disposed of the appeals and connected applications, observing succinctly: “Appeals and applications disposed of.”

The Court orally stated that the High Court’s directions would stand modified, and that a Committee would be constituted to scrutinise eviction cases, Questions that were raised during the hearing are questions relating to:

-long-standing habitation,

-nature of land (forest/revenue),

-compliance with due process,

-and entitlement to statutory safeguards and rehabilitation.

It was submitted by the Petitioners that evictions cannot proceed solely on the basis of executive assertions, and that an institutional fact-finding process was necessary to ensure fairness and compliance with constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 21.

Counsel appearing for the affected residents submitted that the eviction notices were being issued across districts based on a single High Court judgment, despite pending challenges and existing status quo orders. The Court noted these submissions while outlining the committee-based approach.

The detailed judgment/order is awaited.

The petitions before the Supreme Court arose from a Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which had dismissed writ appeals filed by residents and affirmed the ruling of a Single Judge upholding the eviction and demolition action. The High Court had effectively endorsed the state’s move to evict residents from several areas in Golaghat district, treating them as unauthorised occupants.

Senior Advocates Chander Uday Singh and Rauf Rahim appeared for the petitioners along with AOR Adeel Ahmed, and Advocates Abdur Razzaque Bhuyan, Katyayani Suhurd, Ali Rahim, Mohsin Rahim, Nekibur Zaman Choudhury, Nasim Akram Mazarbhuiya, and Shehnaz Laskar.

Significantly, the Supreme Court had earlier intervened in the matter. On August 22, 2025, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Atul Chandurkar had ordered maintenance of status quo on the proposed eviction drive in Negheribill, Gelajan, Bidyapur, Rajapukhuri, Uriamghat and adjoining areas of Golaghat district. Issuing notice on the residents’ special leave petitions, the Court had directed that no coercive steps be taken pending consideration of the matter.

The residents had challenged eviction notices issued by the authorities in July 2025 under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891, alleging that their villages fell within the Doyang and South Nambar Reserved Forests. According to the petitioners, the notices granted only seven days’ time to vacate, which they argued was contrary to statutory safeguards and binding judicial precedents mandating fair notice, hearing, and rehabilitation prior to eviction.

Before the Supreme Court, the residents contended that the Gauhati High Court had erred in branding them as trespassers without examining their constitutional and statutory protections. They claimed that their forefathers had settled in the area over seven decades ago and that, over time, families had constructed permanent and semi-permanent houses, cultivated agricultural land, and developed social, economic, and religious institutions.

The petitions highlighted that the residents had been granted electricity connections, ration cards, Aadhaar numbers, and had been continuously enrolled in electoral rolls. Many families had also received housing assistance under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin), which, according to them, demonstrated consistent recognition of their residence by the State itself.

The impugned High Court judgment was assailed as raising substantial questions of constitutional and legal importance, including alleged violations of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the Supreme Court’s own directions in In Re: Demolitions, which require due process, prior notice, and safeguards before any demolition action.

The residents further alleged that the demolition drive had rendered entire communities homeless, destroying houses, schools, mosques, hand pumps, and agricultural fields, and amounted to mass dispossession without due process. They claimed violations of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, 21, 25, 300A, and the right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution.

In a similar case, the Supreme Court in July 2025, had issued notice on a contempt petition against the eviction and demolition conducted in Hasila Beel revenue village in Goalpara district of Assam. Court was therein told that the eviction and demolition exercise predominantly targeted a minority community, while leaving out similarly placed persons from the majority community untouched, thereby constituting discriminatory implementation and carrying out of the eviction drive by the authorities concerned. The eviction drive allegedly also demolished around five government primary schools, violating the Right to Education under Article 21A of the Constitution and statutory protection under the Right to Education Act, 2009.

Case Title: Abdul Khalek v. The State of Assam

Bench: Justice PS Narasimha and Alok Aradhe

Judgment Date: February 10, 2026

Tags

Articles

Event Corner

Smart Invester