Encroachments on riverbanks are simultaneously a legal, ecological, and social challenge. Discuss the competing considerations that must guide a balanced eviction policy along the Ganga.

Q. Encroachments on riverbanks are simultaneously a legal, ecological, and social challenge. Discuss the competing considerations that must guide a balanced eviction policy along the Ganga. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Riverbanks are common property held by the State in public trust, yet the Ganga's floodplains remain riddled with illegal structures. The Supreme Court's 2026 direction to the Centre and the National Mission for Clean Ganga to file a status report on bank encroachments [6] shows that eviction is less an enforcement task than a balancing exercise.

The legal challenge - The River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016, issued under the Environment Protection Act, 1986, created the National Ganga Council–NMCG–District Committee structure and binds all basin states [1]. - Federal friction: land records and eviction machinery lie with state revenue and police departments, while NMCG can only advise; most states are yet to delineate and notify floodplains [3]. - The public trust doctrine, evolved through the M.C. Mehta line of Ganga cases, gives courts the basis to review such executive inaction.

The ecological challenge - Floodplains are natural sponges and groundwater recharge zones; the 2016 framework therefore mandates keeping banks as construction-free zones [2], since concretisation raises peak flood discharge. - Plastic waste and habitat loss threaten the Gangetic dolphin, India's National Aquatic Animal. - Encroachment is often a front for illegal sand mining, regulated by states under the MMDR Act, 1957 [5] — a revenue interest that blunts enforcement. - The ₹22,500 crore Namami Gange Mission-II outlay [4] yields poor returns while floodplains stay occupied.

Competing considerations for a balanced policy - Differentiate the encroacher: fisherfolk, washermen and migrants who live on the bank cannot be treated like commercial builders. - Due process and rehabilitation before demolition, with notice, hearing and alternate sites. - Cultural sensitivity toward ghats and religious structures in Varanasi, Haridwar and Patna. - Sequencing: notify floodplain boundaries first, so eviction rests on published maps, not discretion.

A balanced policy must thus be firm on ecology and fair on livelihoods. Time-bound state floodplain notification, District Ganga Committees as grievance forums, and rehabilitation-linked eviction can reconcile the two — advancing both Article 21's right to a clean environment and SDG-6 on water.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. Cabinet approves the River Ganga (Rejuvenation, Protection and Management) Authorities Order, 2016 — PIB — 2016 Order, EPA 1986 basis, NMCG-led institutional structure 2. No Development Zone along Ganga River — PIB — construction-free zone / floodplain protection along the Ganga 3. Flood Plain Zoning and demarcation of river floodplains — PIB — NMCG advisories to basin states; most states yet to delineate floodplains 4. Namami Gange Mission-II approved with a budgetary outlay of ₹22,500 crore till 2026 — PIB — programme outlay at stake 5. Illegal sand mining — PIB — MMDR Act, 1957 and state responsibility for enforcement 6. "SC seeks status report on Ganga bank encroachments" — The Hindu, March 15, 2026 (link not verifiable; cited title-only) — Supreme Court direction to Centre and NMCG