Orissa High Court Seeks Report on Alleged Police Excesses in Sijimali Mining Protest
The Orissa High Court has instructed the Rayagada district administration to file a report regarding allegations of police excesses against tribal villagers who are opposing a bauxite mining initiative near their localities. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash also directed authorities to preserve peace across villages situated near the proposed mining zone on Sijimali Hill, spanning Rayagada and Kalahandi districts.
What Happened
A public interest litigation was brought before the High Court by Purushottam Hikaka and seven other petitioners. The case addresses events surrounding community resistance to a proposed bauxite mining venture on Sijimali Hill. Local villagers have resisted the project on grounds that mining activities would jeopardize their livelihood, ecology, and natural water resources. Tensions escalated when district authorities in Rayagada attempted to facilitate the construction of an access road leading to the site.
According to the petitioners’ advocate, Anup Kumar Mohapatra, law enforcement personnel conducted early-morning raids on March 10 in Kalahandi district. Mohapatra submitted that officers forced open doors, ransacked residences, and detained 21 residents, among whom were 10 women. The plea stated that multiple charges were registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the detainees were lodged in Bhawanipatna jail.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the forceful entries and arrests breached procedural standards established in the landmark D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal ruling. The submission also detailed alleged mistreatment involving a 19-year-old pregnant woman, three other female residents, and their children, adding that women were detained without being informed of the grounds for their custody.
Representing the state, counsel Saswat Das contested these claims, stating that police units were present to execute court-issued non-bailable warrants. Das submitted that while carrying out their lawful duties, police personnel were assaulted, resulting in injuries to 58 officers.
Key Highlights
- Court Order: The Orissa High Court ordered the Rayagada administration to provide a factual report on the alleged police actions and directed officials to maintain public order in nearby villages.
- Judicial Bench: The ruling was issued by a Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash.
- Villagers’ Concerns: Residents oppose the Sijimali Hill bauxite project due to fears of environmental degradation, damage to local water bodies, and disruption of their livelihoods.
- Petitioners’ Claims: The plea alleges unlawful dawn raids on March 10, the detention of 21 villagers under the UAPA, procedural violations under the D.K. Basu guidelines, and the mistreatment of women and children.
- State Position: State counsel submitted that officers were executing judicial warrants when they faced violence, which left 58 police personnel injured.
Why This Matters
This judicial intervention underscores legal scrutiny over state enforcement actions during environmental and land-use disputes. The allegations highlight tensions between industrial infrastructure initiatives—such as road construction for resource extraction—and the rights and welfare of local tribal populations. By examining whether statutory arrest guidelines were adhered to and addressing claims involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the court’s review places official actions and standard operational protocols under formal judicial oversight.
What to Watch Next
The Rayagada district administration is required to compile and submit its formal inquiry report addressing the allegations raised in the petition. The Orissa High Court has scheduled the next hearing in the public interest litigation for September 2.
Frequently Asked Questions
What prompted the Orissa High Court’s direction?
The order follows a public interest litigation filed by Purushottam Hikaka and seven others, alleging harsh police raids and wrongful arrests of tribal villagers resisting a bauxite project on Sijimali Hill.
What did the state government submit in court?
State counsel Saswat Das submitted that police teams went to execute court-issued non-bailable warrants and came under attack, which resulted in injuries to 58 police personnel.
Which laws and precedents were cited by the petitioners?
Petitioners’ counsel argued that the police raids violated the arrest safeguards outlined in the Supreme Court case D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, and noted that charges were invoked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
When will the High Court hear the case again?
The High Court has listed the public interest litigation for its next hearing on September 2.
Source: Based on reporting from The Hindu.