Guwahati: More than 60 people’s movements, trade unions, civil rights organisations and environmental groups have condemned the Assam government’s decision to invoke the National Security Act (NSA) against indigenous rights activist Pranab Doley, describing it as a “vindictive” attempt to defeat a court order granting him bail and to criminalise democratic protests against a proposed luxury tourism project near Kaziranga National Park.
In a joint statement issued on Monday, the organisations demanded the immediate revocation of the NSA detention order against Doley, Convener of the Greater Kaziranga Land and Human Rights Protection Committee (GKLHRPC), and sought the release of all activists arrested in connection with the ongoing land rights movement in Kaziranga.
The statement alleged that the criminal prosecution of Doley and other Adivasi and indigenous activists was aimed at punishing them for exercising their constitutional right to protest and called for the immediate withdrawal of the criminal case registered against them.
According to the statement, Doley was arrested on July 12 in connection with a case registered at Bokakhat Police Station under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita following a protest held on June 28 against the proposed Hyatt luxury resort project at Inglay Pathar near Kaziranga National Park and Tiger Reserve (KNPTR).
Four other activists — Amit Nag, Bijit Kutum, Bhaskar Saikia and Rajib Pegu were also arrested in the same case, while several others were named and continue to face the threat of arrest, the statement said.
The organisations noted that the Sessions Court at Golaghat granted bail to Doley and the four co-accused on July 29 after they had remained in judicial custody in Golaghat district jail.
However, a day later, the Assam government invoked Section 3(2) of the National Security Act against Doley, preventing his release despite the bail order, the statement said.
It alleged that the detention order was served on Doley’s family only on July 31 while bail formalities were being completed, calling the move “a blatant attempt to circumvent the process of law”.
Court observations
The organisations drew attention to the observations made by the Additional Sessions Judge while granting bail.
According to the statement, the court observed that the dispute had its roots in environmental degradation and concerns over its impact on the socio-cultural life of local tea tribe communities.
The court, it said, had held that criminal law could not become an instrument to suppress concerns relating to environmental conservation and the survival of indigenous communities, and had observed that “genuine peace and order will return to the region only when the concerns of the affected people are listened to carefully”.
The statement further said the court had favoured participatory environmental governance and dialogue over confrontation.
Quoting from the bail order, it said the court had observed that members of historically marginalised communities such as the tea tribes could not be expected to negotiate on an equal footing with senior officials of multinational corporations and that the participation of social workers and community leaders was necessary to ensure fairness in such discussions.
According to the statement, the court had further observed that treating such activists as “external disruptive elements” would only complicate the dispute and render discussions unproductive.
The land dispute
The organisations said the invocation of the NSA could not be viewed in isolation from the ongoing land rights movement around Kaziranga.
According to the statement, indigenous and Adivasi communities have opposed the transfer of land for commercial tourism projects, including the proposed Hyatt luxury resort at Inglay Pathar, which they described as an ecologically sensitive elephant habitat adjoining the Kohora range of Kaziranga National Park.
The statement referred to documents examined by The Reporters’ Collective, which it said showed that around 30 bighas of land had been allotted to the Assam Tourism Development Corporation (ATDC) before being transferred for the hotel project.
It said affected families had challenged the government’s claim that the land belonged exclusively to the state and had approached the Gauhati High Court with documentary evidence supporting their claims.
According to the statement, the High Court issued notices to the Assam government and the ATDC on June 1 on a petition filed by 20 evicted families.
The organisations argued that the dispute reflected a broader pattern of land acquisition in Assam involving tourism, infrastructure, mining, township and power projects that, they alleged, threatened indigenous communities, forests and common resources.
They maintained that the protests led by Doley raised legitimate questions about land rights, displacement, environmental protection and the future of communities living around Kaziranga, and said portraying such activities as threats to national security turned the concept of national security “on its head”.
NSA grounds questioned
The statement also questioned the grounds cited by the government while invoking the NSA.
It said the detention order referred to protests in which Doley had allegedly participated, road blockades, damage to public property, his foreign travel over the past decade and alleged “suspicious foreign transactions”.
According to the organisations, the Sessions Court had already observed that any legitimate concerns relating to foreign travel or funding could be investigated through documentary evidence without requiring Doley’s continued incarceration.
The statement argued that the reasons cited in the detention order merely demonstrated the arbitrary and vindictive nature of the action against Doley for being a socially and politically active citizen and human rights defender rather than someone posing a threat to national security or public order.
The organisations argued that the use of the NSA in Doley’s case raised serious constitutional concerns, saying preventive detention could not become an alternative whenever ordinary criminal proceedings failed to keep an activist in custody.
They contended that the sequence of events — the grant of bail by the Sessions Court on July 29 followed by the invocation of the NSA on July 30 — suggested an attempt to nullify the judicial order.
According to the statement, such action undermined not only the personal liberty of the accused but also the independence of the judicial process. It warned that allowing governments to invoke preventive detention immediately after courts grant bail would set a dangerous precedent by enabling the executive to override judicial safeguards available under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The organisations compared the present case with the detention of peasant leader and anti-corruption activist Akhil Gogoi under the NSA in 2017. They recalled that Gogoi, then associated with the Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS), had been detained under the Act following protests over farmers’ issues, dams, corruption and citizenship.
According to the statement, the Gauhati High Court quashed Gogoi’s detention on December 21, 2017, holding that the detention order was legally unsustainable, including on the ground that his constitutional right under Article 22(5) to make representations against the detention had not been properly communicated.
The organisations said the similarities between the two cases should concern all democratic citizens, alleging that the Assam government had once again used a law intended for exceptional threats to national security and public order against an activist associated with people’s movements.
The statement further argued that the increasing use of criminal prosecution and preventive detention against environmental defenders, land rights activists and indigenous communities reflected a wider national pattern in which opposition to land acquisition, displacement and corporate projects are being equated with threats to national security.
It maintained that Adivasi and indigenous communities defending their land, forests and natural resources were exercising constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b), while also performing duties recognised under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution relating to environmental protection. It also referred to Article 48A, which directs the State to protect and improve the environment.
The organisations contended that the misuse of criminal law to silence such voices undermined intergenerational equity, sustainability and social justice.
The statement also cited the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1998, which recognises the right of individuals and organisations to promote and protect human rights and obliges States to protect defenders against retaliation and arbitrary action.
It further referred to a statement issued on July 17, 2026, by several United Nations Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups expressing concern over the arrests of Doley and the other activists. According to the organisations, the UN experts said the arrests could undermine legitimate work undertaken to defend indigenous peoples’ rights in the context of business activities and called for their immediate release.
The joint statement placed seven demands before the Assam government. These include the immediate revocation of the NSA detention order against Doley; withdrawal of the criminal case against Doley, Amit Nag, Bijit Kutum, Bhaskar Saikia, Rajib Pegu and others opposing the Hyatt project; the release of all activists imprisoned in connection with land struggles across Assam, including Adit Chandra Rabha; an end to the use of preventive detention laws against environmental and land rights defenders; an independent investigation into allegations of police excesses and criminalisation of protesters; transparent review of land allotments and proposed tourism projects around Kaziranga with participation of affected communities; and protection of indigenous, Adivasi, peasant and forest-dwelling communities from displacement and corporate acquisition of land.
The organisations urged the Assam government to revoke the NSA detention order, release Doley and other imprisoned land rights activists, withdraw what they described as false criminal cases against Kaziranga activists, and end what they termed the criminalisation of democratic movements.
The statement was endorsed by more than 60 organisations, including the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM), People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), Human Rights Defenders Alert–India, National Alliance for Climate and Ecological Justice (NACEJ), Friends of the Earth–India, Fridays for Future India, New Trade Union Initiative (NTUI), National Federation of Small-scale Fishworkers, North East Human Rights (NEHR), Campaign to Defend Nature and People (CDNP), Campaign Against Fabricated Cases, Odisha, Chhattisgarh Bachao Andolan, Dibang Resistance, Indigenous Research and Advocacy (IRAP), Climate Front India, and several regional organisations from Assam and other parts of the country.