Forest Encroachments Cannot Be Regularised by Welfare Facilities: Supreme Court Orders Time-Bound Eviction and Restoration of Agasthyamalai Tiger Landscape
Case Name: A. John Kennedy and Others v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 605
Date of Judgment/Order: May 29, 2026
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta
Held: The Supreme Court held that protection of reserve forests, wildlife sanctuaries, tiger reserves and ecologically sensitive landscapes is not merely a statutory duty but a constitutional obligation flowing from Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution. The Court held that long-standing encroachments in forest and tiger reserve areas cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely merely because eviction involves administrative, political or humanitarian difficulties. While rehabilitation of vulnerable occupants must proceed in a humane and coordinated manner, it cannot become a perpetual excuse to postpone legally mandated eviction, restoration and wildlife protection. The Court further held that government facilities, welfare schemes, electricity, transport and infrastructure support in encroached forest areas have the effect of legitimising illegal occupation and must be stopped.
Summary: The matter concerned the Agasthyamalai ecological landscape in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, including the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve and Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary, along with claims of displaced tea estate workers from the erstwhile Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited estate. Pursuant to earlier directions, the Central Empowered Committee inspected the landscape and reported serious and long-standing forest encroachments, including over 5,000 hectares in Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve, encroachments in Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve, illegal resorts, government facilities within encroached areas, and even encroachment by serving or retired government employees. The State of Tamil Nadu acknowledged the problem and placed before the Court its steps for eviction, rehabilitation, drone survey, withdrawal of services, action against government servant encroachers, and recovery of land handed over by BBTCL. The Court appreciated these steps but held that the pace of compliance remained inadequate when compared with the scale of ecological harm and the urgency of protecting a globally significant biodiversity hotspot.
Decision: The Supreme Court issued detailed continuing mandamus directions and required a time-bound, division-wise eviction plan to be placed before the CEC within one month. It directed physical eviction, rehabilitation where applicable, legal action against wilful violators, post-eviction ecological restoration, monitoring of pending encroachment cases, disciplinary and legal action against 118 government servant encroachers, and consideration of environmental restitution charges to be deposited with Tamil Nadu CAMPA. It imposed a blanket moratorium on welfare schemes, public utilities, transport, electricity and infrastructure support in encroached forest areas, prohibited new non-forestry activity or diversion proposals in the Agasthyamalai landscape until encroachments and illegal infrastructure are addressed, ordered illegal resorts and commercial/tourism infrastructure to be made non-operational and dismantled, directed transfer of Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary records from Kerala to Tamil Nadu, and required FSI survey, demarcation, geo-referencing and digitisation of protected-area boundaries within six months. The CEC was directed to submit its report in sealed cover by August 28, 2026, and the matter was listed as part-heard on September 1, 2026.