The National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone has issued a significant interim order staying the Assam government’s directive to deploy forest protection personnel for election duties, affirming that biodiversity conservation cannot be compromised for administrative convenience. This ruling reinforces the statutory duty of states under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and aligns with the Supreme Court’s prior directive on non-requisitioning of forest staff.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The applicant, Gaurav Kumar Bansal, challenged an order dated 19.03.2026 issued by the Office of the Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, which directed the mobilization of approximately 1,600 personnel of the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) to assist the Assam Police in connection with the forthcoming Assam Assembly Elections scheduled for 09.04.2026. The order required AFPF personnel to report to the office of the Additional Director General of Police on or before 03.04.2026, effectively diverting them from their core duties of forest protection and biodiversity conservation.
Key Facts
- The Assam Forest Protection Force is a specialized force established under the Assam Forest Regulation, 1972, primarily tasked with patrolling, surveillance, and protection of forests and wildlife.
- Assam is home to critical biodiversity hotspots including Kaziranga National Park, Manas National Park, and several Tiger Reserves under Project Tiger.
- These areas harbor endangered species such as the one-horned rhinoceros, Bengal tiger, and Asian elephant, all of which require constant, uninterrupted monitoring.
- The applicant submitted that the sudden withdrawal of 1,600 frontline personnel creates a vacuum in forest surveillance, significantly increasing the risk of poaching, illegal wildlife trade, and unauthorized tree felling.
- The impugned order was issued without any prior environmental impact assessment or consultation with the State Biodiversity Board.
Procedural History
- 19.03.2026: Office of the Special Chief Secretary, Government of Assam, issued order directing deployment of 1,600 AFPF personnel for election duties.
- 02.04.2026: Original Application No.76/2026/EZ filed before the National Green Tribunal Eastern Zone, Kolkata.
- 02.04.2026: Hearing conducted in physical mode with hybrid participation.
- 02.04.2026: Tribunal passed interim order staying the impugned order and directing compliance.
- 06.04.2026: Next date of hearing fixed for further submissions.
The Parties' Positions
The applicant, represented by Mr. Gaurav Kumar Bansal, Advocate, contended that the order violated statutory obligations under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Supreme Court’s directive in Civil Appeal No. 1249 of 2019. The respondents, including the Union of India and the Government of Assam, were not present at the hearing and had not filed any response at the time of the order.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought:
- Quashing of the impugned order dated 19.03.2026
- Stay of its implementation during pendency of the application
- Direction to the State to ensure AFPF personnel are not diverted from core conservation duties
- Any other relief deemed fit by the Tribunal
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the diversion of forest protection personnel for non-conservation purposes, such as election duty, constitutes a violation of statutory obligations under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, particularly Section 36, and whether such action contravenes the Supreme Court’s binding directive in State of Uttarakhand v. In the Matter of Protection of Forest, Environment, Ecology, Wildlife etc., from the Forest Fire etc.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant relied on Section 36 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, which mandates State Governments to develop and implement strategies for conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, including identification and monitoring of biodiversity-rich areas. He argued that forests, especially Protected Areas and Tiger Reserves, are critical repositories of biological resources requiring continuous vigilance. Diverting 1,600 frontline personnel for election duty directly undermines this statutory mandate. He further cited the Supreme Court’s order dated 15.05.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 1249 of 2019, which explicitly prohibited the requisitioning of forest staff and vehicles for election purposes or other non-essential activities like the Char Dham Yatra. The applicant emphasized that the precautionary principle under Section 20 of the NGT Act, 2010 compels the Tribunal to act preemptively to prevent irreversible ecological harm.
For the Respondent/State
No response was filed or presented by the respondents at the time of hearing. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte, relying solely on the applicant’s submissions and documentary evidence.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the statutory framework under the Biological Diversity Act, 2002, particularly Section 36, which imposes a non-delegable duty on State Governments to ensure the conservation of biological resources through active monitoring and protection. The Court noted that the forests of Assam are not merely land parcels but are designated as biodiversity hotspots under international and national frameworks, including the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Tribunal observed that the impugned order, by withdrawing 1,600 personnel from forest surveillance, creates a systemic vulnerability that cannot be remedied retroactively.
"The forests of Assam, which are known to harbour a rich and diverse range of biological resources, including several endangered and near-extinction species, require constant vigilance and monitoring. The absence of adequate frontline staff creates a vulnerable environment, thereby increasing the likelihood of poaching, illegal wildlife trade, and other exploitative activities."
The Tribunal further held that the Supreme Court’s directive in Civil Appeal No. 1249 of 2019 is binding on all States and applies with equal force to Assam. The Court emphasized that the Precautionary Principle under Section 20 of the NGT Act, 2010 requires action even in the face of scientific uncertainty, particularly when ecological damage is imminent and irreversible. The Tribunal rejected the notion that electoral duties could override statutory environmental obligations, stating that such a balance would render environmental laws meaningless.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 19.03.2026 till further orders. The Special Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Environment, Forest and Climate Change Department, is directed to desist from violating the provisions of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. The order mandates immediate cessation of the deployment of AFPF personnel for election-related duties. A copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Chief Secretary and the Special Chief Secretary for compliance. The next hearing is scheduled for 06.04.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Forest Staff Cannot Be Requisitioned for Non-Ecological Duties
- Practitioners may now cite this order to challenge any state directive diverting forest personnel for elections, religious pilgrimages, or administrative tasks.
- The ruling reinforces that Section 36 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 imposes a continuous, non-negotiable duty of monitoring and protection.
Precautionary Principle Overrides Administrative Convenience
- The Tribunal’s invocation of the Precautionary Principle sets a precedent for proactive intervention even without proven ecological harm.
- Future applications may rely on this to seek stays against any policy that creates a foreseeable risk to biodiversity.
Supreme Court Directives Are Binding on State Agencies
- The explicit reference to State of Uttarakhand v. In the Matter of Protection of Forest... confirms that Supreme Court orders on environmental matters are binding across all states.
- State governments cannot invoke discretionary powers to override such directives.
