Governance – NGT Halts Assam Move to Deploy Forest Staff for Poll Duty

Governance –  A two-member bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has put a temporary stop to the Assam government’s decision to assign more than 1,600 personnel from the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) to election-related duties. The tribunal expressed concern that such a move could weaken forest monitoring at a time when ecological threats are on the rise.

Tribunal Raises Concerns Over Forest Surveillance

The Eastern Zone bench of the NGT, comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Expert Member Ishwar Singh, issued notices to several key authorities, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), the National Biodiversity Authority, and senior forest officials in Assam. Alongside these notices, the tribunal stayed the government’s directive until further consideration.

The bench noted that diverting forest personnel from their primary responsibilities could leave sensitive areas vulnerable. It highlighted the increasing cases of illegal activities such as poaching and stressed that maintaining vigilance in forest regions is critical. According to the tribunal, reallocating such staff for election duties may not align with legal provisions governing environmental protection.

Objections from Former Officials and Experts

The tribunal’s decision follows objections raised by a group of retired bureaucrats and environmental specialists. In a letter addressed to the Assam government and the Chief Election Officer, they strongly opposed the deployment order.

The group argued that the directive contradicts existing legal guidelines and administrative practices. They specifically referred to an order dated March 19, 2026, issued by the state’s Special Chief Secretary for Environment, Forest and Climate Change, questioning its legality and potential consequences.

According to the signatories, forest personnel play a crucial role in safeguarding biodiversity-rich areas. Assigning them to non-environmental tasks, especially during a critical period, could disrupt conservation efforts and compromise ecological security.

Legal Framework and Biodiversity Obligations

Legal experts have also weighed in on the matter. Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who practices at the NGT, pointed to provisions under the Biological Diversity Act (BDA), 2002. He explained that Section 36 of the Act places responsibility on the central government to develop strategies for conserving biological diversity and ensuring sustainable use of natural resources.

Similarly, Section 36B extends these obligations to state governments. These provisions emphasize the need for continuous monitoring and protection of ecologically sensitive zones, including forests, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves.

Bansal noted that these regions contain vital natural resources and require dedicated personnel for effective management. Diverting forest staff for unrelated duties, he argued, undermines the intent of the law and weakens conservation mechanisms.

Reference to Supreme Court Guidelines

The issue also touches upon earlier directions from the Supreme Court. In a ruling dated May 15, 2024, the court had clearly stated that forest staff and departmental resources should not be used for election-related work or other non-forest activities.

The letter submitted by former officials cited this judgment as a key reason for opposing the Assam government’s decision. They maintained that compliance with such directives is essential to ensure both legal consistency and environmental protection.

Balancing Administrative Needs and Conservation Priorities

The case brings into focus a broader challenge faced by governments—balancing administrative requirements, such as conducting elections, with the need to preserve ecological systems. While elections demand significant manpower, experts caution against reallocating specialized personnel whose roles are critical to environmental security.

For now, the NGT’s stay order ensures that forest protection staff will continue their primary duties. The matter is expected to be reviewed further after responses are received from the concerned authorities.

The outcome could have wider implications, potentially influencing how states manage resource allocation during major administrative exercises without compromising environmental responsibilities.