The Supreme Court (SC) has put a hold on the anti-encroachment drives in Assam's reserved forests. A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe stated that the Constitution does not allow choosing between environmental protection and the rule of law.

Eviction drives in Assam have been a contentious issue, often aimed at clearing reserved forest lands of alleged encroachers. The Assam government has maintained that these drives are necessary to protect forest cover, reduce human-elephant conflict, and reclaim what it considers to be its land.

In August 2025, the Gauhati High Court upheld the Assam government's eviction drives in reserve forests. The court also directed the government to implement mechanisms preventing illegal entry into these areas, including potential penal action against forest officials found colluding with encroachers. The High Court prescribed a 30-day notice period for encroachers before any eviction.

These eviction drives have been carried out in various districts, including Goalpara and Nagaon. In Goalpara, a drive aimed to reclaim over 140 hectares of encroached forest land in the Paikan Reserve Forest. In Nagaon, the forest department launched a drive to clear nearly 1,700 families from the Lutamaari Reserve Forest. Officials have stated that these actions followed directives from both the Supreme Court and the Gauhati High Court.

The drives have faced criticism, with some residents claiming a lack of awareness that the land they settled on was a reserved forest. Concerns have also been raised regarding the displacement of communities, with a majority of those evicted in some drives being Muslims with roots in present-day Bangladesh.

The Assam government has asserted its commitment to continuing eviction drives where required. However, the recent Supreme Court order puts a stop on these drives for now. The Supreme Court's intervention highlights the complex balance between environmental protection, the rule of law, and the human rights of those affected by such drives.