Guwahati, June 10: In a significant ruling on forest protection, the Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that the Assam government has both the authority and constitutional responsibility to remove encroachments from reserved forest areas, while ensuring that affected occupants are given an opportunity to be heard before eviction.

The court directed that alleged encroachers be given a 15-day period to submit their explanation, followed by a further 15 days to vacate the land if their claims are found unsustainable, effectively providing a 30-day process before eviction proceedings are carried out.

The judgment came in a batch of cases involving residents occupying land inside reserved forests in Assam. Petitioners argued that many families had been living in the areas for decades and possessed documents such as Aadhaar cards, ration cards and voter identity cards.

The State, however, maintained that the land forms part of reserved forests notified as far back as 1887 and 1888 and that occupants have no legal right over such land. According to submissions placed before the court, nearly 3.62 lakh hectares of forest land in Assam are under encroachment, affecting almost 20 per cent of the state’s forest area.

The High Court accepted the broader principle that the government cannot remain a silent spectator when reserved forests are occupied. The bench observed that forest protection is not merely an administrative exercise but flows from constitutional and environmental obligations placed upon the State.

Importantly, the court clarified that identity documents such as Aadhaar cards, voter IDs or ration cards do not create ownership rights over reserved forest land. Such documents may establish a person’s identity or residence but cannot override statutory forest notifications.

The legal battle later reached the Supreme Court, where a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe broadly endorsed Assam’s forest conservation efforts but indicated that eviction cases should not be handled through a uniform mechanical process. The apex court suggested a committee-based review mechanism to examine issues such as long-standing habitation, the nature of the land, due process requirements and claims for rehabilitation before eviction is carried out.

The Supreme Court also underscored that while environmental protection is a constitutional necessity, eviction drives must be conducted through lawful procedures and cannot become arbitrary exercises.

The latest Gauhati High Court order is expected to influence future eviction drives across Assam, where the government has intensified efforts to reclaim reserved forest land while balancing environmental concerns with procedural safeguards for those facing displacement.