Industrial expansion in India’s tribal regions often presents a complex challenge, as economic ambitions clash with constitutional protections and environmental sensitivities. The latest controversy in Assam highlights this tension, as a private cement company’s request for a massive land allotment has drawn the scrutiny of the Gauhati High Court.
Mahabal Cements has sought over 3,000 bighas roughly four square kilometers in Umrangso, located in Dima Hasao, one of Assam’s most sensitive tribal districts. To put the scale in perspective, the requested land area is nearly as large as the district itself. The move has prompted concern that such industrial encroachment could undermine indigenous rights and public interest.
During hearings earlier this month, Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi expressed shock at the sheer size of the proposed allotment. While the company’s counsel described the land as “barren,” the court rejected the claim, stressing that the dispute centers on public interest rather than private industrial needs. The court has asked the autonomous council and government to provide policy documents and justification for approving such a large transfer.
Central to the case is the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which grants tribal areas a degree of self-governance and safeguards community land ownership. Large-scale transfers to private entities risk displacing indigenous populations from ancestral lands, potentially eroding cultural, social, and economic foundations. Experts caution that any deviation from these protections could set a precedent for similar projects across Northeast India.
Environmental considerations further complicate the issue. Umrangso is ecologically significant, known for hot springs, migratory bird habitats, and rich biodiversity. Activists and local communities argue that designating the land as “barren” ignores its critical ecological role. A cement plant in the area could lead to deforestation, air and water pollution, and long-term environmental degradation, threatening both wildlife and tribal livelihoods.
Local residents have actively opposed the land allotment, filing petitions to prevent eviction and safeguard the land. Meanwhile, the company has also approached the court, citing obstructions to its operations. The High Court has scheduled the next hearing for September 1, when both sides are expected to present detailed arguments. Justice Medhi’s insistence that public interest takes precedence underscores the broader implications: if constitutional safeguards in Sixth Schedule areas can be overridden for industrial growth, it may influence land policies across the region.
Proponents of the project point to potential benefits, including job creation, infrastructure development, and increased revenue. Yet critics argue that economic gains cannot justify the erosion of constitutional protections, environmental risks, and displacement of indigenous communities. This conflict between development and rights is not unique to Dima Hasao but resonates across tribal areas in India, where governments often grapple with balancing industrial growth against legal and cultural obligations.
Currently, the cement project remains on hold. The High Court has directed the North Cachar Hills Autonomous Council (NCHAC) to submit detailed records explaining the rationale for the land allotment. The verdict, expected after the upcoming hearings, could have lasting implications for governance, industrial expansion, and environmental protection in tribal districts.
The Dima Hasao dispute highlights a key challenge for India: reconciling industrial ambitions with constitutional safeguards and ecological sustainability. While development is essential for economic growth, public interest and indigenous rights must remain paramount, ensuring that expansion does not come at the cost of communities or fragile ecosystems.
