The ministry’s panel granted ex-post facto clearances to these camps even as it has submitted before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) that they were built without obtaining prior permissions from the Centre. While NGT’s principal bench is hearing the Hailakandi case suo moto, the eastern bench is hearing the Geleky case based on a petition filed by Assam-based environmental activist Rohit Chowdhury.

“No future expansion shall be allowed and further diversion of forest land for any expansion purposes shall be allowed in the instant case…the instant case shall not set any precedent or regularization of ex-post facto approval in similar matters. The approval accorded in the instant proposal shall be subject to the order of the Hon’ble National Green Tribunal and other orders in this regard,” FAC stated.

The Assam government, on its part, had submitted to the Centre, despite conclusions of illegality, that it had constructed these camps for “forest protection and conservation”, especially keeping in view the threat from armed encroachers.

“It is not out of any greed of land by Assam Forest or Assam Police or any diversion for commercial purposes of forest land that the Battalion has been allowed to set up. The battalion has been set up in conditions which cannot be mitigated by any other means by the State Govt…Govt. of Assam through its two Departments namely Assam Forest and Assam Police have done best possible for the protection of the Forest and maintaining the integrity of the state,” the Assam Forest Department had submitted to the Center to justify the ex-post facto clearance.

Further, it asked the Center to condone the “inadvertent mistake” if any of its principal chief conservators of forest (PCCF) and head of forest force (HOFF). “The PCCF and HOFF acted on behalf of the state govt. in the interest of forest protection only and not otherwise,” the state government submitted. The state government was referring to its top forest officer MK Yadava, who approved the construction of these camps. The environment ministry’s regional office in Shillong had found Yadava’s actions violative of the forest conservation laws and even issued a show-cause notice to him last year.

It also requested the Center not to impose penalties under the forest conservation laws, saying the forest land was diverted only for the “protection of the forest.” It said it sacrificed 40 odd hectares of degraded land devoid of tree cover to save thousands of hectares of remaining forests from undergoing further degradation, denudation, encroachment and settlements.