Guwahati: A major administrative decision by the Assam government to divert nearly 1,600 personnel of the Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) for the upcoming Assembly Election election duties has sparked serious legal and environmental concerns.
Questions are now being raised over the order’s compliance with Election Commission guidelines and Supreme Court directives.
The order, issued by Special Chief Secretary of Environment, Forest and Climate Chnage department, M.K. Yadava on March 19, has directed AFPF forest guards to report to the Director General of Police (DGP), Assam, for deployment in the upcoming 2026 Assembly Elections.
Special Secretary Yadava, in letters to the 1st Commandant of AFPF (Basistha), the 2nd Commandant (Jakhalabandha), and the 3rd Commandant (Basistha), has directed them to mobilize a force of 1,600 AFPF personnel and report to the ADGP on or before April 3, 2026.
This move effectively shifts a substantial portion of the state’s frontline forest enforcement machinery away from their core responsibilities at a time when constant vigilance is considered critical.
The AFPF serves as the backbone of Assam’s forest protection system. They are tasked with combating poaching, preventing illegal felling and timber smuggling, and protecting forest land from encroachment. Their presence on the ground—often in remote, high-risk zones—is essential for maintaining ecological security in a state renowned for its rich biodiversity.
However, the decision to divert these personnel has raised red flags in light of established Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines. These guidelines emphasize that essential services and specialized field formations should not be disrupted during election deployment. Forest protection, widely regarded as a continuous and non-negotiable function, falls squarely within this category.
Adding further weight to the issue are past observations by the Supreme Court of India in landmark forest conservation cases, including T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Centre for Environmental Law, WWF-India vs. Union of India.
In these rulings, the apex court underscored the critical importance of maintaining adequate forest protection staff and infrastructure, warning against any dilution that could compromise conservation efforts.
Despite these precedents, the Assam Specail Chief Secretary MK Yadava’s order proposes that senior forest officials oversee forest areas while AFPF personnel are deployed for election duty. This substitution is being widely questioned; senior officials, while responsible for supervision and policy, are not equipped to replace the intensive ground-level patrolling and enforcement carried out by trained forest guards.
The controversy is further sharpened by the profile of the official who issued the directive. M.K. Yadava, a retired forest official now serving as Special Chief Secretary, has previously been linked in media reports to alleged violations concerning the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This backdrop has intensified scrutiny over the present decision, with critics questioning whether due regard has been given to the legal safeguards governing forest protection.
Experts warn that the large-scale withdrawal of AFPF personnel—even temporarily—could open the door to a surge in wildlife crime, illegal logging, and encroachment across Assam’s forests.
The election period, often marked by administrative diversion and reduced field monitoring, may further exacerbate these risks.
“This is not just an administrative adjustment; it is a potential breakdown of forest protection at the ground level,” said a former forest official, requesting anonymity.
“You cannot replace boots on the ground with files in offices,” the official said.