Orissa HC Orders Joint Spot Verification After PIL Alleges Police Attacked Tribal Villagers Over Road Project

A Division Bench at Cuttack declined to immediately appoint a judicial probe but directed the Rayagada SP and two Sarpanchs to conduct a joint spot visit and file a report, while requiring the State to file an affidavit within three weeks.

The High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, in a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, took up a public interest litigation alleging that police personnel attacked tribal villagers in the early hours of 10 March 2026, arrested 21 persons—including ten women—and ransacked houses without lawful authority. Rather than immediately directing a judicial probe or constituting a Special Investigation Team, the bench ordered the Superintendent of Police, Rayagada, along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Sarpanchs of Kantamal and Sagabari villages, to conduct a joint spot verification and place a report before the court. The matter is listed for 2 September 2026.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The PIL, filed by Purushottam Hikaka and others, centres on events in and around Kashipur block, Rayagada district. The petitioners allege that police personnel led by the In-Charges of Kashipur and Karlaput Police Stations broke down doors and entered homes in the early hours of 10 March 2026, arresting 21 villagers—ten of them women—who had been protesting against a government road construction project they say affects their rights.

Among those detained, the petition highlights a nineteen-year-old pregnant woman and three women with infants. The petitioners allege that the detainees were not informed of the reasons for their arrest and were physically humiliated, engaging both their human rights and constitutional rights. Several of those arrested have been lodged in Bhawanipatna Jail, with cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The petition annexed newspaper clippings describing a lathi charge by police and reports of residents being called out of their homes in the middle of the night. The petitioners argued that these actions exceeded the powers conferred by statute and were inconsistent with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 416.

Reliefs Claimed

The petitioners sought four directions from the court. They asked for a judicial probe by a sitting or retired judge of the High Court, or in the alternative, constitution of an SIT monitored by the court, to investigate the police action on the midnight of 6 April 2026 and related incidents since 2023. They also sought compensation for the victims for personal harm and property loss, action against the police and administrative officials responsible, and any other relief the court considered appropriate.

The State's Response

Mr. Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State of Odisha, placed an entirely different account before the bench. He submitted that on the day in question, police personnel had gone to execute non-bailable warrants issued by competent courts. While doing so, they were attacked by the villagers, leaving 58 police personnel injured. Because of this mass resistance, he said, the police had since refrained from entering the village and the situation in Kantamal village and adjoining areas had returned to normal.

Mr. Das also informed the court that no road construction work was at that point being undertaken at the site in Sagabari village under Sunger Gram Panchayat, Kashipur block. Mr. Prasanna Kumar Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India, also appeared before the bench and was called upon to respond to the allegations.

On the broader question of the project itself, the Administration asserted that a Gram Sabha meeting had been held in all eight affected villages in the district on 8 December 2023, in terms of the Forest Rights Act, and that unanimous consent had been given for the mining project. The petitioners disputed that the villagers had concurred in the project.

How the Bench Reasoned

The bench observed that while the petition characterised the events as police atrocities on peaceful protesters, the newspaper reports it examined reflected competing versions from both sides. The photographs published in those reports showed accounts from both the petitioners' and the State's perspectives. The bench held that any action taken by the police beyond the conceivable limits of their power needed to be examined only after the State had been given a proper opportunity to disclose its position.

At the same time, the bench was not prepared to set aside the seriousness of the allegations. It recorded that it could not overlook the statements attributable to the role of the police administration in the instant PIL. The bench took the view that the most appropriate immediate step was a joint spot verification—conducted by the Superintendent of Police, Rayagada, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the Sarpanchs of Kantamal and Sagabari villages—with a report to be submitted to the court on the next date.

The bench also placed interim obligations on both sides. The Police Administration was directed to ensure that no violence or any commission of acts would take place in the adjacent villages pending the next hearing. The petitioners were correspondingly directed to ensure that the villagers would not take the law into their own hands in the meantime.

Outcome

The Division Bench passed the following directions on 7 August 2026:

• The Superintendent of Police, Rayagada, along with the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Sarpanchs of Kantamal and Sagabari villages, shall conduct a joint spot verification and submit a report to the court on the next date of hearing.
• Mr. Saswat Das, AGA for the State, is directed to file an affidavit on behalf of the State within three weeks from the date of the order.
• The Police Administration is directed to ensure that no violence or commission of acts takes place in the adjacent villages until the next date.
• The petitioners are directed to ensure that the villagers do not take the law into their own hands until the next date.
• The matter is listed for 2 September 2026.