Orissa HC directs probe into police excesses on tribals opposing bauxite mine
Orissa HC ordered Rayagada administration to report on alleged police excesses against tribal villagers resisting a bauxite mine near Sijimali Hill and to keep peace in the area.
Orissa High Court directed Rayagada district administration to submit a report on alleged police excesses against tribal villagers opposing a bauxite mining project near Sijimali Hill in Rayagada and Kalahandi districts, and to keep peace in the area. The order came while hearing a PIL; the petitioners said police raided homes in the early hours in Kalahandi district, ransacked houses and arrested villagers, including women. They said cases were filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The court said the matter will be heard again.
What did the court order?
It also ordered the administration to maintain peace in villages close to the mining site. The directive was issued while hearing a public interest litigation filed by Purushottam Hikaka and seven others.
What allegations did the villagers make?
Petitioners said police raided homes in the early hours in Kalahandi district, ransacked houses and arrested villagers, including women. They added that cases were lodged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Counsel Anup Kumar Mohapatra argued that the random house raids by breaking doors violated the guidelines laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal.
What is the state's response?
State counsel Saswat Das submitted that police had gone to execute non‑bailable warrants issued by the court but, in the course of discharging their duties, they were attacked, resulting in injuries to 58 police personnel.
What did the Orissa High Court order regarding the bauxite mining project in Rayagada and Kalahandi?
It directed the Rayagada district administration to submit a report on alleged police excesses against tribal villagers opposing the project and to maintain peace in nearby villages.
Who filed the public interest litigation that prompted the court's order?
Purushottam Hikaka and seven others filed the PIL.
What specific allegations did the petitioners make against the police?
They said police raided homes in the early hours of March 10 in Kalahandi district, ransacked houses, arrested 21 villagers including 10 women, filed cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, sent detainees to Bhawanipatna jail, and subjected a 19‑year‑old pregnant woman and three other women and their children to inhumane treatment without stating reasons for arrest.
What was the state's response to the allegations of police excesses?
State counsel Saswat Das said police had gone to execute non‑bailable warrants issued by the court but were attacked, resulting in injuries to 58 police personnel.
When will the matter be heard again?
The case is scheduled for next hearing on September 2.
Where is the mining site located according to the order?
Near Sijimali Hill in the Rayagada and Kalahandi districts of Odisha.
Which legal case did the petitioners' counsel cite to challenge the house raids?
Counsel Anup Kumar Mohapatra cited the D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal guidelines.
How many police personnel were reported injured during the warrant execution?
Fifty‑eight police personnel were reported injured.
What act were the arrested villagers charged under?
They were charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
What did the court ask the administration to maintain in villages close to the mining site?
The court asked the administration to maintain peace in villages close to the mining site.
Jyotirmayee Majhi
District Correspondent, Kalahandi
Jyotirmayee Majhi covers Kalahandi district, with a focus on tribal rights, agriculture distress reporting, and district-level policy.
View all articles by Jyotirmayee →
Loading…