2021 Assam Evictions | Supreme Refuses To Entertain Opposition Leader's Plea Against Demolitions; Directs For Rehabilitation Measures

The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a petition filed by the leader of Opposition in the Assam Assembly, Debabrata Saikia, against the Assam Government's "forced eviction drive" which took place in the Darrang District of the State of Assam from September 21-23, 2021. The bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra noted that since the court had been moved nearly seven months after the impugned Assam High Court order in the mater, the issue of demolition and eviction no longer survived. However, it stated that the question of rehabilitation was still a surviving issue. In this context, the families (around 100) who had not yet been rehabilitated were directed to be heard by the deputy commissioner and reasoned orders were directed to be passed in 6 months. For any other grievances, the affected persons were given liberty to move the High Court afresh. 

The matter pertained to a Cabinet decision of the Government of Assam to evict people living in the the Darrang District of the State of Assam in order to set up an agro farm/model project. While the High Court refused to interfere with the Cabinet's decision, it also noted that 600 families were already being resettled and the remaining 100 families shall be rehabilitated within a period of six months. 

In today's proceedings, Senior Advocate CU Singh, appearing for the petitioner, commenced his arguments by stating that no eviction notice was given to the families living in the district and the entire community was clubbed as "encroachers". He stated– 

"There were no notices issued in the bulk of cases. In some, notices were given at midnight and demolitions took place at 7 am next morning. Your lordships will remember vividly that one person on the second day of demolition ran out of his house with a small stick in his hand and 22 bullets were pumped into him. The video went viral in 2021. There is a level of cruelty that we as a nation are accepting."

CJI DY Chandrachud was quick to interject and say–

"Alright now. Stick to the facts of this case. Don't give us the political speech instead."

Reiterating that no notice was given to those evicted in most cases, Singh contended that in the entire act of eviction was carried on like a "military operation". He added–

"There is a National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2007. While conceiving the act, the Parliament took into account the people whose livelihoods were affected who were not landowners. Assam has its own policy of 2019 with regards to resettlement for those who are affected by flood erosion."

The CJI remarked that as per the High Court order, 600 families had been rehabilitated so far and the remaining 100 families were to be heard by the Deputy Commissioner. However, Singh urged the court to decide on the "larger issue" in the matter. He said–

"How do you go about it? Can you just give notice to people like this? It is like saying that you give a dog a bad name and hang it. You just say that they are encroachers. So I can tell them at midnight and come in the morning? It is something which needs to be looked at. Some guidance has to be given with regards to this. That yes, you are supposed to carry out a survey. You are supposed to assess first if people are encroachers or not. Most of them, their papers vanished. Because there was no notice or short notice and you come with bulldozers, how do they then through subsequently that they are with legal title?"

He added that the eviction was carried out for a project for the employment of the community youth involved in indigenous farming. Expressing his anguish at the situation, Singh asked– "How do you dis-house one lot of your own citizens to house another lot? There is nothing on record that there was any policy of community farming. This is not just about Assam. This is unfortunately a trend everywhere. We take bulldozers and demolish anywhere. This is inhumane!"

He further emphasised that for employment in the field of "indigenous" farming and stated that by providing employment opportunities to indigenous Assamese people, the government could not render everyone else unemployed who was already farming there. 

However, CJI DY Chandrachud was not convinced about the prayers raised by Singh. He said–

"This is not a petition filed by those people. This is a petition by the leader of the opposition...The eviction has admittedly taken place. The question is of rehabilitation...This petition is by a member of a political party. If he was so concerned about this, if he was so concerned about the issue of demolition, why come here after 8 months? The question is now of rehabilitation and that we will protect."

Accordingly, the bench, noting that since the Supreme Court had been moved 7 months after the impugned order of the High Court, stated that it would not be appropriate for it to look into the grievances with regard to the demolition. 

The bench then stated that the actual surviving issue pertained to the manner in which rehabilitation had been carried out. In this regard, the court stated that the families (around 100) who had not yet been rehabilitated shall be heard by the deputy commissioner and reasoned orders shall be passed in each case by 6 months. The court added–

"In the event that there are any surviving grievances with regards to rehabilitation or in respect of any orders passed in respect of the impugned directions of the High Court, it would be open to them to move the High Court afresh highlighting the grievances. In that event, the High Court shall look into the grievance and not dismiss the application on any technicality. In the meantime, the affected persons are also granted liberty to move the legal services authority should they require any assistance."

Case Title: Debabrata Saikia v. The State of Assam & Ors | Diary No. 17161-2023