Upper Assam floods 2026 have triggered a political and legal debate after Congress leader Debabrata Saikia linked the severe Dikhow River flooding to alleged illegal mining and earlier government warnings. Saikia says repeated concerns about sand and stone extraction were not acted upon. A 2022 Water Resources Department inspection had warned that continued excavation could alter the river’s course and threaten nearby communities. The Gauhati High Court is now examining a PIL seeking action on illegal mining, while the Assam government has announced relief and rehabilitation measures for affected families.Can Mining Worsen Assam Floods?Congress leader Debabrata Saikia has alleged that illegal sand and stone mining along the Dikhow River contributed to the scale of flooding in Upper Assam. He has also pointed to earlier administrative warnings and court proceedings over mining in the riverbed. However, the claim that mining caused or significantly worsened the floods remains an allegation under examination, rather than an established finding.Saikia has linked the flooding to alleged illegal riverbed mining.A 2022 official inspection warned about continued excavation.The Gauhati High Court is examining related allegations.The petition also raises concerns about mining in Nagaland.Assam has started relief and rehabilitation measures.Warnings Raised Before FloodsThe controversy centres on an inspection conducted by the Assam Water Resources Department in January 2022 near Bamunpukhuri Tea Estate along the Dikhow. Officials reportedly found deep excavation near the river, widening of the channel and erosion on the opposite bank. The department warned that continued excavation could change the river’s configuration and cause serious damage to nearby areas.Saikia had previously raised the issue of alleged illegal mining through the Assam Assembly and approached the Gauhati High Court. Court proceedings in 2019 and later in 2022 dealt with demands for stronger monitoring, action against illegal mining and protection of the Dikhow’s fragile ecosystem. The issue later became part of a fresh PIL following the devastating floods.Also Read: Diphu River Floods Karbi Anglong Town as Houses Submerge Amid Rising WatersCourt Examines Flood ClaimsThe Gauhati High Court has admitted Saikia’s PIL and sought responses from the Assam and Nagaland governments and other authorities. The petition alleges that illegal sand and stone mining in the Dikhow and unscientific coal mining in parts of Nagaland may have aggravated the flooding. It also asks for scientific assessment of mining, upstream water releases and their possible impact on downstream areas.The wider flood disaster affected large parts of Upper Assam, with Sivasagar among the worst-hit districts. The Assam government has focused on relief and rehabilitation, including financial assistance for affected families. The state has estimated that repairing damaged property and rehabilitating families across four affected districts could cost more than ₹1,000 crore.Key HighlightsDikhow River flooding caused severe damage across Upper Assam.Congress leader Debabrata Saikia blamed alleged illegal mining for worsening the disaster.A 2022 Water Resources Department report warned about excavation risks.Gauhati High Court has sought government responses on the PIL.The petition also raises concerns about mining in Nagaland’s catchment areas.Assam is pursuing relief, damage assessment and long-term rehabilitation.ConclusionThe Upper Assam floods have renewed scrutiny of alleged illegal mining and whether earlier warnings received adequate attention. Saikia’s allegations are now part of a legal process, while authorities will have to respond to questions concerning riverbed mining, environmental safeguards and flood management. At the same time, Assam continues rehabilitation work for affected communities and assessment of the extensive damage caused by the floods.Disclaimer: This article is provided only for knowledge and news-information purposes. Allegations regarding illegal mining and its role in the floods should not be treated as established facts unless confirmed through official investigation or judicial findings.
