Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests

“Encroachment Upon Forest Land Has Emerged as One of the Gravest Challenges Confronting Environmental Governance in the Country”, On February 10, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Abdul Khalek & Others v. State of Assam & Others (Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 @ SLP (C) Nos. 23647-23648 of 2025 and connected matters), addressing the constitutional tension between environmental protection and claims of long-standing habitation within reserved forest areas.

The Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe upheld the State’s constitutional obligation to remove unauthorised encroachments from reserved forests, while simultaneously mandating strict adherence to procedural safeguards and due process. The Court approved a structured mechanism evolved by the State of Assam for eviction of unauthorised occupants and modified the Gauhati High Court’s earlier orders.

The ruling is significant for reinforcing that environmental governance must operate within the framework of constitutional fairness and legality.

The appellants and writ petitioners claimed to be residents of villages situated within Doyang Reserved Forest, South Nambar Reserved Forest, Jamuna Madunga Reserve Forest, Barpani Reserved Forest, Lutumai Reserved Forest and Golaghat Forest in Assam. They asserted that their families had been residing there for more than seventy years and that their existence had been acknowledged by issuance of Aadhaar cards, ration cards and other identity documents by State authorities.

The State of Assam, however, maintained that the lands in question were notified as reserved forests as early as 1887 and 1888 under the forest laws then in force. According to the State, the occupants were unauthorised encroachers. Eviction notices were issued directing them to vacate within seven days.

Challenging the eviction notices before the Gauhati High Court under Article 226, the petitioners argued that the notices were arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and issued without affording opportunity of hearing.

The State defended its action by placing statistical data before the Court, stating that approximately 3,62,082 hectares of forest land — nearly 19.92% of the forest area in Assam — was under encroachment. It asserted that forest lands had been diverted for residential, agricultural and non-forest activities, causing severe environmental degradation.

The High Court’s Division Bench directed issuance of show cause notices and grant of time before eviction. Multiple appeals and writ petitions eventually reached the Supreme Court.

The core issue before the Supreme Court was the extent of the State’s constitutional obligation to protect reserved forests and the manner in which such obligation must be fulfilled when long-standing human habitation is claimed.

The Court made powerful observations on the constitutional mandate governing environmental protection.

It held:

“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.”

The Court emphasised that Article 48A of the Constitution mandates the State to protect and improve the environment and safeguard forests and wildlife. It also referred to Article 51A(g), which imposes a fundamental duty upon citizens to protect and improve the natural environment.

Importantly, the Court clarified that environmental objectives cannot override constitutional procedure. In a crucial observation, the Bench stated:

“The Constitution does not envisage a choice between environmental protection and the rule of law, rather, it insists that both co-exist and reinforce each other.”

Thus, while recognising the seriousness of forest encroachments, the Court insisted that eviction must conform to principles of fairness, reasonableness and due process.

State’s Affidavit and Mechanism for Eviction

Pursuant to the Court’s concerns, the State filed an additional affidavit outlining a detailed procedure to address unauthorised occupation.

The State declared that removal of encroachments was “Constitutionally imperative” in view of the large-scale illegal occupation of forest land.

The mechanism evolved by the State included:

• The constitution of a Committee comprising forest and revenue officials to examine claims.
• Issuance of notices to alleged unauthorised occupants enabling them to produce evidence of authorised occupation.
• Scrutiny of documents by the Committee.
• Passing of a speaking order if occupation is found unauthorised.
• Grant of 15 days’ time to vacate after service of the speaking order.
• Eviction action only after expiry of the notice period.

The affidavit also clarified the legal position regarding Gaon Panchayats and Forest Villages. The Court recorded that a Gaon Panchayat may exist within forest areas under Section 5 of the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994. Further, individuals whose names appear in the Jamabandi Register maintained by the Forest Department, or who hold rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, are legally authorised occupants and not liable to eviction.

However, the Court noted that unauthorised occupants within reserved forests — even if falling within Gaon Panchayat limits — are liable to eviction following due procedure.

Supreme Court’s Findings and Directions

After analysing the State’s proposed mechanism, the Supreme Court held:

“In our opinion, the course of action to be adopted by the State Government while removing the encroachment from the reserved forest contains sufficient procedural safeguards.”

The Court further observed that the process conformed “to the principles of fairness, reasonableness and due process.”

The Solicitor General assured the Court that the mechanism would be implemented objectively and fairly.

The Supreme Court directed that status quo be maintained in respect of the land in occupation of the appellants and writ petitioners until a speaking order is passed and the 15-day notice period expires.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of individual claims and that all contentions remain open before the Committee.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court substituted and modified the Gauhati High Court’s earlier orders and disposed of the appeals and writ petitions. The Article 32 petitions were not examined in detail in view of the structured mechanism now in place. No order as to costs was made.

The judgment stands as a significant constitutional pronouncement harmonising environmental protection with procedural fairness. The Supreme Court has reinforced that while the State bears a “clear and unequivocal obligation” to safeguard forests, such power must be exercised strictly within the confines of due process.

By approving a structured eviction framework that incorporates notice, hearing, documentary scrutiny and a reasoned order, the Court has set a balanced precedent for handling large-scale forest encroachments across the country.

The ruling underscores that ecological preservation and constitutional governance are not competing values but complementary mandates under India’s constitutional scheme.

Date of Decision: February 10, 2026