GUWAHATI — The Supreme Court on Thursday affirmed the Assam government’s authority to evict encroachers from the Manas Tiger Reserve, a UNESCO World Heritage site, after a lower‑court order sought to halt the clearance. The ruling follows a series of legal interventions that began with the Gauhati High Court’s request for a status‑quo on the eviction process.
Background on the Manas encroachment
Manas Tiger Reserve, part of the larger Manas National Park, was inscribed as a World Heritage site in 1985 for its unique biodiversity and trans‑border ecosystem. Over the past decade, satellite imagery and forest‑department surveys have documented that roughly 20% of the reserve’s forest cover has been occupied by illegal settlements, agricultural plots, and commercial activities. The Assam government launched a forest‑protection drive in early 2025, citing the need to restore habitat for the reserve’s dwindling tiger population and to comply with UNESCO’s conservation standards.
High Court intervention
In August 2026, the Gauhati High Court issued an order seeking a status‑quo on the eviction drive, directing the state to pause any further removal of settlers until the court could examine the procedural safeguards. According to a report by The Hindu, the court’s order was prompted by petitions from affected families and several civil‑society groups that argued the evictions were being carried out without adequate rehabilitation plans.
Supreme Court judgment
LawBeat’s coverage of the Supreme Court’s decision notes that a five‑judge bench dismissed the high‑court stay and upheld the state’s forest‑protection measures, provided that the eviction process incorporates specific safeguards. The court directed the Assam Forest Department to ensure that displaced families receive alternative housing, livelihood assistance, and that any demolition of structures follows due‑process requirements under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006.
Government response
Following the judgment, the Assam government released a statement confirming that it will proceed with the clearance of encroached land while adhering to the Supreme Court’s directives. The statement emphasized that the move is essential to meet the reserve’s management plan, which targets a 30% increase in tiger numbers by 2030. It also highlighted that the state has allocated ₹1.2 billion for rehabilitation and compensation, a figure that includes construction of 1,500 housing units and vocational training programs for affected households.
Conservation implications
Conservation experts have long warned that unchecked human activity within the reserve threatens the ecological integrity of the site. The World Heritage Centre has previously issued a monitoring report in 2024, urging India to address illegal settlements that compromise the park’s “outstanding universal value.” The Supreme Court’s endorsement of the eviction drive aligns with those recommendations, though it also underscores the need for a balanced approach that safeguards both biodiversity and the rights of forest‑dependent communities.
Legal and policy context
The Supreme Court’s decision rests on several statutory provisions. Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 empowers the central government to regulate the diversion of forest land for non‑forest purposes. The court reiterated that state actions must be “consistent with the objectives of the Act and the broader environmental jurisprudence of this country.” Additionally, the judgment referenced the Forest Rights Act, noting that any eviction must respect the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, provided that such rights have been legally recognized.
Next steps
The Assam Forest Department is slated to submit a detailed implementation plan to the court within 30 days, outlining timelines for demolition, relocation, and post‑relocation monitoring. The plan must also address the concerns raised by the Gauhati High Court regarding the adequacy of rehabilitation measures. Civil‑society groups have indicated they will monitor the process closely and file further petitions if the safeguards are not fully observed.
