The Supreme Court has directed the State of Tamil Nadu to undertake a time-bound eviction of encroachments from protected forest areas across the ecologically sensitive Agasthyamalai landscape, while simultaneously ensuring rehabilitation of eligible occupants.

The bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that environmental protection cannot be indefinitely postponed on account of administrative, political, or logistical challenges and emphasized that the State’s constitutional obligation to protect forests and wildlife must prevail. 

The case concerns the larger ecological preservation of the Agasthyamalai landscape, a globally significant biodiversity hotspot spread across Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Acting on earlier directions issued in March 2025, the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) conducted extensive surveys across protected areas including the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve (KMTR), Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve (SMTR), Kanyakumari Wildlife Sanctuary and Periyar Tiger Reserve. 

The CEC found widespread encroachments, illegal infrastructure, forest degradation and inadequate enforcement efforts despite previous court directions. It reported that thousands of hectares of reserve forest land continue to remain under illegal occupation. 

Over 5,000 Hectares Encroached in Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve

One of the most alarming findings related to the Srivilliputhur-Megamalai Tiger Reserve, which serves as a crucial catchment area for the Vaigai River. According to official records, more than 4,600 encroachers occupy over 5,072 hectares of reserved forest land across various forest ranges. The CEC noted that despite specific directions issued by the Madras High Court, only a negligible portion of the encroached land has been reclaimed. 

The Court noted that only about 66 encroachers had been relocated and merely 52.86 hectares recovered, describing the progress as grossly inadequate when compared to the scale of the problem. 

Government Employees Found Among Encroachers

The CEC report revealed that 118 serving or retired government employees were found to be occupying forest land illegally. These included personnel from the Army, Police, CRPF, Forest Department, Revenue Department, Electricity Board and other government services. 

Expressing serious concern, the Supreme Court observed that government employees hold positions of public trust and their involvement in forest encroachment constituted a grave dereliction of duty. The Court directed immediate disciplinary and legal action against all identified officials and further required the State to consider imposing environmental restitution charges recoverable through the CAMPA mechanism. 

Court Criticises Continued Extension of Government Amenities

The Bench also took exception to the continuation of public amenities within encroached forest areas. The record showed that schools, Anganwadi centres, ration shops and other government facilities continued to function in several encroached settlements. 

According to the Court, even limited continuation of such services legitimises illegal occupation and discourages voluntary relocation. The Bench therefore ordered a blanket moratorium on welfare schemes, public utilities, transport facilities, electricity supply and infrastructure support within encroached forest areas. 

BBTCL Leasehold Lands and Rehabilitation of Workers

A major aspect of the litigation related to lands leased to Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Limited within the Kalakad-Mundanthurai Tiger Reserve. The State informed the Court that out of approximately 8,373 acres of leased land, over 97% had already been handed back to the Forest Department. 

Regarding displaced plantation workers, the State reported that workers had received voluntary retirement benefits, apartments under government housing schemes, and newly constructed houses in various locations. Essential public institutions such as schools, post offices and fair price shops had also been relocated outside the estate area. 

However, the Court expressed concern over the State’s proposal to retain certain permanent structures, including offices, bungalows, labour houses and religious buildings, within the tiger reserve. It held that such retention appeared inconsistent with the objective of comprehensive habitat restoration and directed a review of all such structures in consultation with the CEC. 

Ecological Preservation Is a Constitutional Duty

The Supreme Court underscored that protection of forests and wildlife is not merely a statutory responsibility but a constitutional obligation flowing from Articles 21, 48A and 51A(g) of the Constitution. Referring to previous environmental jurisprudence, the Bench reiterated that conservation must be eco-centric rather than anthropocentric and that courts are duty-bound not only to prevent environmental degradation but also to ensure restoration of damaged ecosystems. 

The Court highlighted the ecological importance of the Agasthyamalai landscape, which supports endangered species including tigers, elephants, leopards, sloth bears, Nilgiri langurs and Great Indian Hornbills. It also noted the area’s importance for water security and ecological stability across southern India. 

Rehabilitation Cannot Become an Excuse for Delay

While acknowledging the plight of economically vulnerable occupants and communities residing in forest areas for decades, the Court clarified that humanitarian concerns cannot become a perpetual justification for postponing legally mandated restoration measures. It endorsed the State’s classification-based rehabilitation model but stressed that rehabilitation and eviction must proceed simultaneously. 

The Bench observed that environmental obligations cannot be sacrificed merely because rehabilitation presents administrative challenges.

Key Directions Issued by the Supreme Court

The Court issued a comprehensive set of directions, including:

• Preparation of a division-wise time-bound encroachment eviction plan within one month.
• Initiation of disciplinary and legal action against all 118 government employee encroachers.
• Imposition of a blanket moratorium on welfare schemes and infrastructure support in encroached forest areas.
• Prohibition on approval of new non-forestry activities across the Agasthyamalai landscape until encroachments are removed.
• Removal of all illegal resorts, commercial establishments and tourism infrastructure operating within forest areas.
• Discontinuation and relocation of all government establishments functioning inside protected forests within six months.
• Comprehensive survey, geo-referencing and digitisation of tiger reserve and sanctuary boundaries by the Forest Survey of India.
• Monthly compliance reports by the States and quarterly monitoring reports by the CEC. 

Warning of Paramilitary Assistance

In one of the strongest directions issued in the matter, the Court held that if the State Government fails to ensure compliance with its orders, the Central Empowered Committee may recommend deployment of paramilitary forces to assist in the removal of encroachments.

Case Details

Case Title: A. John Kennedy And Others Versus State Of Tamil Nadu And Others

Citation: Jurishour-1478-Sc-2026

Case No.: Civil Appeal No(S). 6395-6397 Of 2025

Date: 30/05/2026

Read More: 3-Month Timeline for Pronouncing Reserved Judgments: Supreme Court