Forest Evictions Must Follow Due Process, Rule of Law: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that the mandate to clear encroachments from forest land does not permit arbitrary action, asserting that environmental protection and the rule of law are not mutually exclusive but must co-exist and reinforce each other.

A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe observed that while encroachment on forest land has emerged as one of the gravest challenges to environmental governance in India, the Constitution requires that such issues be addressed strictly through lawful and fair procedures.

The bench underlined that forests are among the nation’s most vital natural resources, serving far more than commercial or alternative land-use purposes. “Forests regulate climate, preserve biodiversity, recharge groundwater, prevent soil erosion and act as natural carbon sinks,” the court noted, adding that their role assumes heightened importance in a country as ecologically diverse and climate-vulnerable as India.

At the same time, the court stressed that the constitutional obligation to protect forests must be discharged without compromising principles of due process. “The mandate to clear encroachments from forest land does not authorise arbitrary action. The Constitution does not envisage a choice between environmental protection and the rule of law,” the bench said.

Background

The appeals before the apex court arose from disputes over long-standing human habitation within reserved forest areas in Assam, raising questions on how the state must fulfil its constitutional duty to protect forests when residents claim historical occupation.

The appellants are residents of villages located in Doyang Reserved Forest, South Nambar Reserved Forest, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest, Barpani Reserved Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest and Golaghat Forest. They claimed that they and their predecessors had been residing in these areas for over 70 years, with their presence acknowledged through Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other identity documents issued by state authorities.

The Assam government, however, maintained that the appellants were occupying reserved forest land without legal rights, and the Forest Department issued eviction notices directing them to vacate within seven days.

High Court Proceedings

The eviction notices were challenged before the Gauhati High Court, with the appellants alleging that the action was arbitrary, violated principles of natural justice, and was taken without any prior hearing or adjudication of their claims.

The state countered that unauthorised occupants had cleared forest land for residential and agricultural use, leading to severe environmental degradation. It placed data on record showing that about 3,62,082 hectares of forest land in Assam were under encroachment, affecting nearly 19.92 per cent of the state’s forest area.

In July 2025, a single judge of the high court extended the deadline to vacate the land until August 7, 2025. Subsequently, on August 18, a division bench directed the state to frame regulations to prevent future encroachments and to issue show-cause notices giving residents 15 days to respond. This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court’s Directions

Taking note of the Assam government’s affidavit, the apex court approved the proposal to constitute a committee comprising forest and revenue officials. The committee will issue notices to alleged unauthorised occupants and allow them to present evidence supporting their claim to the land.

The court noted that eviction will be carried out only if encroachment is conclusively established, following scrutiny of documents. In such cases, a speaking order must be passed and served, granting 15 days’ notice before any removal action.

The state clarified that occupation by a Gaon Panchayat within forest land may be permissible if supported by records such as the Jamabandi Register or under provisions of the Forest Rights Act.

Finding that the proposed process includes adequate safeguards, the Supreme Court held that it conforms to principles of fairness and due process. It directed that the status quo be maintained on the land occupied by the appellants until speaking orders are issued and the notice period expires, while keeping all contentions open for consideration by the committee. The court modified the high court’s order accordingly.

Senior advocates C U Singh and Huzefa Ahmadi, along with advocate Adeel Ahmed, appeared for the petitioners, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Assam government.