A proposed road project tied to a bauxite mining venture in Odisha has sparked conflict on the ground and a legal battle, underscoring longstanding concerns over land, forest rights, and environmental clearances. According to reports, more than 100 people were allegedly injured in violence that broke out between the police and local communities on April 7 near the site of the proposed greenfield road.

The Sijimali bauxite mining project, spread across Rayagada and Kalahandi districts, belongs to the billionaire businessman Anil Agarwal’s London-headquartered company Vedanta Ltd and is opposed by local communities who claim that their rights under the Forest Rights Act will be violated if the project is allowed to proceed.

The violence came a few days after construction work commenced in early April on a 2.98-km greenfield road in Kashipur tehsil in Rayagada. The new road will connect the project with State Highway 44. A section of local communities has filed a petition in India’s premier environmental court, the National Green Tribunal, challenging the in-principle approval granted by the Union government to clear forest land for the road. The petition is still being heard.

The violence of April 7, local communities said, started with a pre-dawn raid—between 2:30 am and 3 am—by a huge posse of armed police personnel in Kantamal, a village affected by the mining project, to round up villagers opposing the road construction.

Rayagada police say a team was sent to Kantamal to arrest a local community leader, Suba Singh Majhi, 34. The non-bailable warrant (this correspondent has a copy) that occasioned the police action was issued against Majhi by a first-class magistrate of Kashipur in August 2025.

Majhi heads a community forum called Maa Mati Mali Surakhya Mancha (Mother, Soil, and Farmer Protection Forum), which is committed to the protection of the region’s land and natural resources. It is opposed to Vedanta’s bauxite mining project.

According to the police, Majhi is accused of breaching law and order in as many as 14 FIRs. Majhi, speaking to this correspondent over phone, said: “It is only from videos of a police press conference that I learnt about being accused in 14 cases. The only notice that I had ever received was the non-bailable warrant.”

He described what happened on April 7: “More than 50 people, mostly elderly tribal women, were injured in the police assault. At least three elderly women were grievously hurt. The injured are using home remedies; they don’t venture out to seek medical care because they fear police action. Allegations that local people attacked the police are baseless. The police swooped down so suddenly, under cover of darkness, that it was impossible for us to retreat or regroup for retaliation.”

Local residents said that on March 2, copies of non-bailable warrants issued against seven individuals were pasted by the police next to the entrances of their homes. One of them is Gobinda Naik, 35. He works as a bill collection agent for a private power discom, and conducting door-to-door visits is part of his job profile. He said that he was accused of inciting people to violence during these visits. “The day before the raid, on April 6, policemen chased me for several kilometres through the rough terrain,” he told this correspondent.

The police version

The Rayagada police claim that their team reached Kantamal only around 5 am, was attacked by the villagers, and beat a hasty retreat a little after 6 am. They say that 58 members of the team, including women constables, were injured in the attack by local residents.

Rayagada Superintendent of Police Swathy S. Kumar said the police team comprised 12 platoons consisting of as many as 200 personnel. “There was random stone-pelting by the villagers. The team was also attacked with the blunt sides of axes. Six cops with grievous injuries have been referred to a hospital in Vishakhapatnam in Andhra Pradesh for treatment. Twelve cops are being treated in a Rayagada hospital,” Kumar told this correspondent.

When asked why 12 platoons were sent to arrest Majhi, she said: “The large force was sent after conducting a threat assessment in light of previous incidents of violence. Three FIRs have been registered after the violence on the basis of complaints by police officers.”

With villagers opposing construction on the new road, there was tension in the area for a few days. A curfew was imposed from 6 pm on April 3 in a 500-metre radius around the road construction site, with prohibitory orders clamped under Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The curfew was still in place at the time of writing this report. The area also witnessed flag marches by the police.

Soon after the violence of April 7, videos shot on mobile phones went viral on social media platforms, and the police were criticised for their high-handedness with tribal people. In some videos, villagers held up tear gas shells allegedly used by the police. In one video, a villager complained that his cow died after being hit by a tear gas shell. Photos of an injured woman also went viral.

Opposition leaders from the Congress and Biju Janata Dal accused Odisha’s BJP government of suppressing the rights of tribal communities. They also pointed out the irony of it with President Droupadi Murmu, Union Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram and Chief Minister Mohan Charan Majhi belonging to Scheduled Tribes from Odisha.

The greenfield road: Standalone or ancillary?

The greenfield road that is being opposed by villagers was proposed by the Odisha Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (IDCO). A total of 11.314 hectares was acquired, including 6.403 hectares of non-forest land and 0.160 hectares of private land. In a letter dated January 5, 2026, the Union government granted Stage I clearance under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980, for using 4.911 hectares of forest land for the road. The approval followed IDCO’s proposal for forest land diversion submitted to the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change.  

As documents submitted to the Union Ministry show, IDCO was entrusted with the task of facilitating land acquisition for the road and transferring it to the State’s Public Works Department (PWD). The PWD, while retaining ownership of the land, would provide a no-objection certificate (NoC) to Vedanta for constructing the road.

The Ministry’s letter of Stage I approval (available on its website) says forest land cannot be transferred to the “user agency”, that is, Vedanta, before final approval for diversion: “Transfer of forest land to user agency should not be effected by the State Government of Odisha till final/Stage-II approval for its diversion is issued by the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change.”

However, through a letter in January 2023, the Ministry had issued a set of guidelines to allow the commencement of mining operations in non-forest land before obtaining final approval, or Stage-II clearance, in all types of mining leases involving both forest and non-forest land. The guidelines were first issued only for coal mining leases in December 2021, but were later extended to all mining leases.

The State government, meanwhile, says that the forest land has not been handed over to the user agency yet. “Acquisition of non-forest land is complete. Construction work for the road was begun only on the non-forest component of the land parcel,” a senior official of Rayagada district administration told this correspondent.

A questionnaire has been emailed to Vedanta, asking it to provide a copy of the NoC, if any, that has been provided to it by the PWD for carrying out the road construction work. Details of Net Present Value (NPV) paid by Vedanta, or to be paid by it, against diversion of 4.911 hectares of forest land have also been sought, along with plans for compensatory afforestation. (There was no response from Vedanta when this report was published.)

IDCO’s application (submitted in 2025) seeking diversion of 4.911 hectares of forest land for the road was distinct from Vedanta’s proposal (submitted in 2024) seeking clearance to divert 708.204 hectares of forest land across Rayagada and Kalahandi for the mining project.

The Ministry’s Forest Advisory Committee (FAC), which appraises the potential impact of plans for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes, discussed the two proposals in a meeting on July 30, 2025. The minutes noted: “As this road is an ancillary component of the Sijimali Bauxite Mines project, the competent authority may consider appraising both proposals concurrently to ensure an integrated evaluation and to avoid any fait accompli situation.”

The minutes show that the FAC discussed the quality of the forest land that was sought for diversion. Surveys indicate that the land, categorised as DLC Forest (area identified by a district-level committee as a forest), has sparse vegetation density of less than 0.4. The State Forest Department has recorded a total of 91 trees in the land marked for the road project, though local residents say that is a gross underestimation. The local Divisional Forest Officer’s submissions argued against any soil disturbance, including deep cutting or soil compaction, at the site because the area, with its steep slopes and sparse vegetation, is prone to soil erosion.

The FAC noted that sal, bahada, jamun, mango, and gooseberry trees were found in the site. The place was also home to animals such as barking deer, wild boar, peacock, and Indian hare, the FAC noted. The Odisha government backed the project in the FAC meeting on the grounds that the previous BJD government of the State had taken a decision to undertake it through IDCO and the PWD at a meeting of top officials in January 2024.

Notably, a letter from the Union Ministry in January 2025 issued a clarification that an approach road for a mining project, if conceived subsequently, should be treated as a standalone project. Still, the proposal was sent to the Odisha government for re-examination in the light of contradictory inputs on whether the road was a standalone project or ancillary to the mining project.

At the FAC meeting on July 30, Odisha’s Forest Department said that the road was not solely meant for transporting bauxite extracted from the Sijimali project and described it as a general-purpose linear infrastructure project of the State PWD. It would provide connectivity to five remote villages—Dumerpadar, Porlang, Sagabari, Bichapinda, and Malipadar. It argued that the road should be treated as a standalone project and not ancillary to the Sijimali mining project.

But minutes of the FAC meeting of July 30 show that the members saw the road as “primarily designed to support the movement of heavy vehicles for the mineral evacuation from the concerned mine”. The FAC decided to keep on hold the proposal for diversion of forest land for the road until diversion of forest land for the mining project was approved: “The proposal for road construction can only be considered once the proposal for the diversion of forest land for the said mining lease is approved. The State government shall therefore submit the proposal after obtaining the in-principle approval for the diversion of forest land in the Sijimali Bauxite Mine.”

In subsequent FAC meetings, held on August 25 and October 27 in 2025, the road project was mentioned only in passing reference, and the main discussion was on forest clearance for the mining project. The decision to treat the proposals one after the other was reiterated in these two meetings. A meeting of the FAC on December 2 recommended in-principle prior approval to divert forest land for the mining project. It was followed by the letter of January 5, 2026, in which the Union government granted “in-principle” approval for diverting forest land for the road.

A questionnaire has been emailed to IDCO seeking details of the provision that empowers it to facilitate land acquisition for a “mining” project, as against its mandate to develop industrial infrastructure. A query has been raised as to whether the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (LARR Act), 2013, were used in acquiring 0.160 hectares of private land for the road. (There was no response by the time this article was published.) The Act requires a social impact assessment (SIA) for projects and mandates obtaining the “consent” of village councils (gram sabha) for acquiring land in Fifth Schedule areas.

Not standalone, villagers say in petition to tribunal

In a recent petition to the National Green Tribunal’s eastern zone bench, local communities challenged the Ministry’s “in-principle” approval for diverting forest land for the road. The petitioners alleged that IDCO obtained the clearance “illegally” by wrongfully projecting the road as a standalone project, whereas it is an integral part of Vedanta’s Sijimali mine. The entire exercise was allegedly undertaken to circumvent rights guaranteed to local forest-dependent communities, to the forests that are to be cleared, under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.

The petition stated: “The 1st respondent [the Ministry] has failed to see that by considering the 3rd respondent’s [IDCO’s] proposal for diversion of the subject forest lands as a standalone linear project, the mandatory requirement of consent of tribals under the FRA Act 2006 has been circumvented and defeated. Further, by mischaracterising the subject project as a linear project, the respondents have paved the way for commencement of work without obtaining stage II clearance.”

The petitioners argued that IDCO’s mandate does not allow it to apply for diversion of forest land for building infrastructure for Vedanta’s bauxite mine. The bench admitted the petition for hearing after considering the arguments of the petitioners. A division bench of the tribunal, comprising judicial member Arun Kumar Tyagi and expert member Ishwar Singh, said in an order dated February 27, 2026: “Prima facie there is no ground to dismiss the appeal at this stage and the present first appeal being a matter of right under the provisions of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 is admitted for hearing.” In a subsequent hearing, the bench posted the matter for further consideration on May 18.

Tribal populations to be affected by mining project

The proposed Sijimali bauxite mining project is spread across a total lease area of 1,548.786 hectares. The mineral block has 311 million tonnes of bauxite reserves, and Vedanta proposes to extract  9 million tonnes per annum (MTPA).  

As many as 18 villages, in Thuamul Rampur tehsil of Kalahandi and Kashipur tehsil of Rayagada, will be affected. Notably, Thuamul Rampur tehsil and the entire Rayagada district are classified as Fifth Schedule areas owing to the preponderance of tribal communities. Special provisions of the Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Area) Act, or PESA Act, of 1996, are applicable in the administration and control of Fifth Schedule areas to protect and safeguard rights of tribal communities. The stretch of 708.2 hectares of forest land, for which the Union Ministry on December 2 granted in-principle approval for Vedanta to use, has supplemented livelihoods of local tribal communities over generations. 

Local communities also claim traditional “religious and cultural rights” over the forest. They say the proposed diversion will hamper the worship of Tiriraja, the presiding deity of forest dwellers.

Protection of the religious and cultural rights of tribal communities is guaranteed under the landmark PESA Act, which makes it mandatory to hold consultations with local communities, through gram sabhas, before any takeover of land and other natural resources, including forests and minerals. Widespread opposition was witnessed during public hearings held in October 2023 in Rayagada and Kalahandi for obtaining environmental clearance for the bauxite mining project.

In March 2025, the Odisha High Court ruled that the Union government should settle all forest rights claims of tribal communities before allowing diversion of forest land for the mining project. Local communities had filed a petition alleging that signatures of attendees of gram sabha meetings held across 10 villages in December 2023 were forged. Following the High Court order, the district administrations of Rayagada and Kalahandi furnished certificates issued by the gram sabhas, dated January 18 and 24, 2024, respectively, confirming that the proposal of diversion of forest land for the mining project had received their free and informed consent.

Subsequently, local communities sent at least three communications to the FAC alleging that it was being misled by the Odisha government and the project proponent on the issue of settlement of rights of forest-dependent communities. It has been alleged that the FAC granted prior approval for forest clearance without taking cognizance of the complaints.

The proposed mining project was, allegedly, not evaluated against the provisions of the Orissa Scheduled Areas Transfer of Immovable Property (By Scheduled Tribes) Regulation, 1956, which prohibits the transfer of land and minerals in the State’s Fifth Schedule areas to private entities.

Vedanta Group deems the Sijimali project, which is its first bauxite mine in Odisha, important for supplying raw material for its alumina smelter in Lanjigarh in Kalahandi district. The smelter has been granted an environmental clearance to function at a capacity of 6 MTPA. Following a landmark Supreme Court order in 2013 that indigenous communities would have the final say on bauxite mining by a Vedanta subsidiary, gram sabhas of project-affected villages rejected the company’s proposal to extract bauxite from the Niyamgiri Hills, on the grounds that it would violate their “religious and cultural rights”.

Meanwhile, delegations of political parties continue to visit the disturbed area in Rayagada on fact-finding missions even as the road project lies in a limbo. After the violence of April 7, work remains suspended on the road project and labourers have left the site.

Ayaskant Das is an independent journalist and writer based in the National Capital Region.

Also Read | The depot keeps winning in Chhattisgarh. Can the forest fight back?

Also Read | NGT order reopens the illegal limestone mining debate in coastal Gujarat