New Delhi: In a landmark judgment addressing the delicate balance between environmental conservation and human rights, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that while the state is constitutionally mandated to protect reserved forests, it cannot act arbitrarily when evicting long-term residents.

A Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe disposed of a batch of appeals and writ petitions (including Abdul Khalek & Others v. The State of Assam) by substituting previous High Court orders with a new, robust procedural mechanism. This mechanism ensures that "due process" is followed before any bulldozer reaches the forest fringes of Assam.

The case emerged from several reserved forest areas in Assam, including Doyang, South Nambar, Jamuna Madunga, Barpani, Lutumai, and Gola Ghat. The State Government had issued eviction notices to thousands of residents, giving them as little as seven days to vacate lands they claim to have occupied for over 70 years.

The residents (appellants) argued that their families had lived there for generations, supported by government-issued ID documents like Aadhar and Ration cards. Conversely, the State of Assam contended that nearly 20% of its forest land (3,62,082 hectares) is under illegal encroachment, leading to massive environmental degradation.

Writing for the Bench, Justice Alok Aradhe highlighted that forests are "complex ecological systems" vital for carbon sinking and groundwater recharge. The Court invoked Article 48A (State's duty to protect the environment) and Article 51A(g) (Fundamental duty of citizens to protect nature).

However, the Court made a significant observation regarding the "Rule of Law":

"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."

Based on an additional affidavit filed by the Solicitor General on January 18, 2026, the Supreme Court recorded a specific "Policy Decision" that the State of Assam must now follow. This 7-point mechanism serves as a safeguard against arbitrary evictions:

Joint Committee Oversight: The State must form a committee consisting of both Forest and Revenue officials to oversee claims.
Right to Evidence: Alleged encroachers must be issued a notice and given a fair opportunity to produce evidence showing their legal right to stay.
Strict Forest Focus: Action can only be taken if the land is strictly within a "Reserved Forest" area.
Revenue Land Protection: If the land is found to be within "Revenue Limits" (outside notified forest areas), the Forest Department cannot evict. The case must be handed over to the Revenue Department for separate adjudication.
Speaking Orders: If the committee finds the occupation is unauthorized, it must pass a "Speaking Order" (a detailed, written explanation of the decision).
15-Day Grace Period: After the speaking order is served, the occupant must be given at least 15 days to vacate voluntarily before any coercive action is taken.
Recognition of Forest Villages & ST Rights: The Court clarified that those listed in the "Jamabandi Register" of Forest Villages or those protected under the Forest Rights Act, 2006 are legally authorized and cannot be evicted.

The judgment emphasizes that residents should not be treated as "unauthorized" if they can produce valid documentation. According to the court's proceedings and the state's policy, the following documents are crucial for the Joint Committee's verification:

Jamabandi Register: Records showing your name in the official Forest Village registers.
Forest Rights Act (FRA) Certificates: Recognition of rights under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Act, 2006.
Voter Lists & Identity Proofs: Old Voter Lists (pre-1971 or generational records) and Aadhar/Ration cards to prove long-term residence.
Revenue Records: Any document showing the land falls under a "Revenue Village" rather than a "Reserved Forest."
Gaon Panchayat Records: Documents showing the area is an established administrative unit under the Assam Panchayat Act, 1994.

The Supreme Court has directed that "Status Quo" be maintained for the petitioners currently before the court. This means no eviction can take place until the new committee examines their documents, passes a speaking order, and the subsequent 15-day notice period expires.

This judgment is a significant victory for procedural fairness in India. It moves away from "summary evictions" and establishes that even an "encroacher" is entitled to the protection of the law. By involving the Revenue Department and insisting on written orders, the Court has ensured that legitimate residents—who might have been wrongly classified as encroachers—have a fighting chance to prove their title.

For the State of Assam, the judgment provides a clear, legally sound roadmap to clear actual encroachments without facing constant litigation over "natural justice" violations.

Case Details:

Case Title: Abdul Khalek & Others v. The State of Assam & Others
Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (@SLP (C) Nos. 23647-23648/2025)
Date of Order: February 10, 2026
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe