Summary
On 11 October 2026, the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department demolished the homes of about 12 Barela tribal families in Kosmi village, Budhni area, Sehore district, citing encroachment on forest land. Crops were damaged and a well was filled with soil.
Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, who represented Budhni for nearly two decades, called the drive an injustice and a conspiracy by officials. An aide said Chouhan had asked CM Mohan Yadav to halt it that morning and had been assured it would stop.
The CM ordered an inquiry and promised temporary housing and food. The NCST took suo motu cognisance. The Forest Department says eviction notices were served and the families had destroyed a 2021 plantation. The case raises the question of what a forest officer owes the law, the families and a hierarchy giving mixed signals.
WHY IT MATTERS FOR UPSC & STATE PCS
The demolition of tribal homes in Kosmi village drew sharp criticism from Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan against his own party's State government. The Chief Minister ordered an inquiry and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes issued notices to the State's Chief Secretary and DGP.
Standard News
The Notice Was Served. Was Justice? Picture the Divisional Forest
Officer's position on the morning of 11 October. Eviction notices had already gone out to families in Kosmi village. The department's position is that they had encroached on forest land and destroyed a plantation raised in 2021.
The JCBs are ready. On paper, this is enforcement of a lawful order. Picture the same morning from the other side. About a dozen Barela tribal families - a Scheduled Tribe - have lived on this land for years. By evening their homes would be rubble, their crops damaged and their well filled with soil.
Shivraj Singh Chouhan, Union Agriculture Minister and their former MLA, would stand among them that night describing roof tiles scattered over their belongings. According to his aide, Chouhan had phoned Chief Minister Mohan Yadav that morning to stop the drive and was assured it would be stopped.
It went ahead anyway, apparently without the CM's knowledge.
Why this is not a simple case of right versus wrong The easy answer would be that an officer who follows served notices has done nothing wrong.
But Section 4(5) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 says that no forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribe member shall be evicted until the recognition and verification of their claims is complete. Nationally, about 11 lakh FRA claims are still pending, with Madhya Pradesh holding a large share.
Whether the Kosmi families' claims were filed, verified or rejected is not clear from the reporting. That gap matters. A notice is not the same as due process if the process the law requires has not run its course. The other easy answer would be that the officer should simply have obeyed the political signal to stop.
That is also wrong. An officer who suspends lawful enforcement because a powerful politician phones in sets a precedent that cuts both ways. The same logic would let political pressure shield real encroachers or protect favoured parties.
Forest staff have their own case: a Deputy Ranger suffered a serious head injury in the confrontation.
What each choice costs - Proceeding with the demolition protects the forest and the department's authority, but leaves vulnerable families homeless, possibly before their legal rights were settled.
- Halting on a phone call spares the families, but bends enforcement to political influence rather than law and leaves the dispute unresolved.
What
I would have done I would have paused the demolition, but not because of the phone call. I would have paused because Section 4(5) requires verification of rights first. I would have recorded in writing that verification of FRA claims had to be completed before eviction and that families who did qualify would need rehabilitation arrangements.
Then I would have sent the file up the formal chain, making the decision on law, not on influence.
Quick Facts
Key numbers & takeaways — revise these first
-
Location: Kosmi village, Budhni area, Sehore district, Madhya Pradesh, in the Vidisha Lok Sabha constituency.
-
Affected: about 12 Barela tribal families.
-
The Barela are a sub-group of the Bhil and a recognised Scheduled Tribe in Madhya Pradesh.
-
Date of demolition: 11 October 2026.
-
Forest Department's stand: eviction notices were served earlier and the families had encroached on and destroyed a government plantation established in 2021.
-
Section 4(5) of the Forest Rights Act, 2006: no forest-dwelling ST may be evicted until recognition and verification of claims is complete.
-
FRA claims pending nationally: about 11 lakh, with Madhya Pradesh holding a large share.
-
The NCST took suo motu cognisance and issued notices to the Chief Secretary and DGP.
-
Wildlife First v. MoEF (2019): the Supreme Court ordered eviction of over 11 lakh families on 13 February and stayed its own order on 28 February.
-
Bulldozer judgment (2024): the Supreme Court mandated 15-day notice and due process before demolitions, with exceptions for public places and court-ordered demolitions.
Connect the dots for your UPSC preparation.
Standard news covers the event. Log in to read our comprehensive analysis and uncover the hidden constitutional, structural, and ethical dimensions of this topic:
A side-by-side reckoning of what each path costs the forest, the families, the forest staff and the integrity of administration.
How FRA Section 4(5), the 2024 bulldozer guidelines and Article 46 together define due process for evicting tribal families.
The officer's real dilemma when a superior's informal signal conflicts with a formal order and why the answer is the law, not the phone call.
The Wildlife First precedent of 2019 and why the Supreme Court chose to stay its own eviction order.
Included in this analysis
Join thousands of aspirants analyzing the news deeply.
Unlock Premium — Rs.699 AnnuallyDon't have an account? Sign up for free