The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has issued a stay on the Assam government’s controversial decision to assign 1,600 personnel from the state’s forest protection force to election duties for the forthcoming Assembly elections. This ruling, delivered by a bench consisting of Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and expert member Ishwar Singh, is seen as a significant intervention in the intersection of environmental laws and electoral processes.
The move to deploy forest officers came under scrutiny after advocate Gaurav Bansal filed a petition arguing that such an order violates both the 2002 Biological Diversity Act and a Supreme Court ruling from 2024, which clearly stated that personnel dedicated to forest conservation should not be diverted for election-related activities. The NGT described the Assam government’s order as ‘bad in law’, signaling a strong stance on the importance of adhering to legal frameworks that protect biodiversity and the integrity of forest services.
On March 19, in a bid to mobilize resources ahead of the Assembly elections scheduled for April 9, the Assam government mandated that approximately 1,600 members of the Assam Forest Protection Force report for duty to the office of the additional director general of police by April 3. This directive raised eyebrows among environmentalists and legal experts who were quick to point out the potential negative impact on biodiversity conservation efforts in the state.
The NGT’s decision comes at a crucial time, as the state administration is already under the scrutiny of the Election Commission following the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct. This code is designed to ensure free and fair elections, and the involvement of forest officers, tasked primarily with conservation efforts, could be seen as a conflicting use of their expertise and resources.
The tribunal has also issued notices to various stakeholders, including the Assam government, the Ministry of Environment, the National Biodiversity Authority, and key officials such as the principal chief conservator of forests and the special chief secretary. This broad outreach indicates the tribunal’s commitment to addressing the legal and environmental implications of such government orders, as well as its intent to ensure accountability in governance.
The implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate electoral context. It raises critical questions about the allocation of resources and the prioritization of environmental protection in a rapidly changing political landscape. As the elections approach, the state’s strategies and decisions will be closely watched by both voters and environmental advocates alike.
