Guwahati: Even as the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has put an immediate stay on the Assam government’s decision to deploy over 1,600 Assam Forest Protection Force (AFPF) personnel for election duty, the state’s forest department appears to be preparing for a legal pushback instead of compliance—raising serious questions over intent and priorities.
A two-member bench of the NGT’s Eastern Zone, comprising Justice Arun Kumar Tyagi and Expert Member Ishwar Singh, on Thursday stayed the March 19 order that directed large-scale mobilisation of AFPF personnel for poll duty.
The tribunal also issued notices to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), the National Biodiversity Authority, the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF), and the Assam government.
Yet, within hours of the stay order, Assam’s Special Chief Secretary (Forest) M.K. Yadava reportedly sought para-wise comments from PCCF & HoFF Sandeep Kumar—signalling that the government may contest the ruling rather than implement it.
Why the urgency?
The development has triggered a fundamental question: why is the state so keen on deploying forest protection personnel for election duty—despite legal red flags and ecological risks?
Assam is currently not grappling with any major insurgency threat that would necessitate such extraordinary mobilisation.
If additional manpower is required, critics ask, why not requisition central forces like the CRPF instead of pulling frontline forest staff away from their core responsibilities?
NGT flags legal violations
Terming the deployment order “bad in law,” the NGT made it clear that allowing the move would create a “fait accompli” and set a dangerous precedent.
The petitioner, advocate Gaurav Bansal, argued that the directive violates a May 2024 Supreme Court order that explicitly barred states from requisitioning forest personnel or vehicles for non-forestry duties, including elections.
The tribunal also raised procedural concerns. The March 19 communication, issued by M.K. Yadava, was sent to AFPF commandants but notably excluded the Chief Electoral Officer—raising questions about the legality and authority behind the directive.
Wildlife at risk
Environmentalists warn that diverting AFPF personnel, even temporarily, could leave protected areas vulnerable to poaching and encroachment, weaken surveillance across ecologically sensitive zones such as Kaziranga National Park, and undermine long-term conservation efforts.
“This is not just about manpower—it’s about dismantling a critical layer of forest protection,” said a conservation researcher based in Assam.
The AFPF, established in 1986, is specifically mandated to safeguard forests and wildlife. Stripping it of personnel during a sensitive period, experts argue, directly compromises conservation systems on the ground.
Mounting opposition
The controversy has drawn sharp criticism from across the country.
A group of former civil servants and wildlife experts has already urged the Assam government to withdraw the order, warning that it violates both legal norms and administrative safeguards. Their appeal points out that Election Commission of India (ECI) guidelines explicitly prohibit assigning territorial forest staff to election duties.
The letter, drafted by former Kerala PCCF Prakriti Srivastava and backed by prominent names including Meena Gupta, A.K. Jha, Uma Shankar Singh, Prerna Singh Bindra, and Debadityo Sinha, warns that such redeployment could open the door to poaching, illegal logging, and encroachment.
Separately, the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), comprising around 40 retired IAS, IPS, and IFS officers, has written to the Assam Chief Secretary expressing “serious concern” over what it calls a direct violation of established legal norms and Supreme Court directives.
A pattern of controversy?
The issue also revives scrutiny around M.K. Yadava’s past record. The retired IFS officer has previously faced allegations related to violations of forest conservation laws, including a 2025 directive from the Environment Ministry’s Shillong office seeking action over the establishment of commando battalion camps on forest land.