Following the violent eviction on 19 February 2003, law enforcement agencies arrested 132 individuals, including 99 women and 33 men, along with 37 children. The women were charged under provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, while the men faced charges under various sections of the
Indian Penal Code. All detainees were remanded to judicial custody for 15 days and transported to the Central Jail in
Kannur district. On 21 February 2003, leaders of the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha (AGMS),
C. K. Janu and
M. Geethanandan, were apprehended near Nambikolli, approximately 4 kilometers from
Sulthan Bathery, on the Bathery-Ooty road. Additionally, K. K. Surendran, a lecturer at the District Institute of Education and Training (DIET), was arrested in connection with the agitation. The then Chief Minister of Kerala,
A. K. Antony, declined opposition demands for a judicial inquiry into the incident, asserting that the government had already distributed 1,800 acres of land to landless tribals and allocated ₹60 million for tribal housing schemes. He stated that the government aimed to distribute a total of 1,840 acres. However,
K. Muraleedharan, then president of the
Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee, contested these claims, arguing that there was insufficient land to meet the needs of all tribal groups and that the government's calculations were flawed. Opposition leader
V. S. Achuthanandan visited the protest site and publicly expressed support for the tribal community. Subsequently, the
Communist Party of India (Marxist) joined the movement, and the
Left Democratic Front (LDF) launched statewide protests demanding a judicial inquiry into the incident. The police action drew widespread condemnation from Kerala's intellectual and literary circles, leading to large-scale demonstrations in solidarity with the protesters. On 24 February 2003, social activist A. Vasu reported that AGMS leaders C. K. Janu and M. Geethanandan claimed nearly 15 individuals were fatally wounded during the police firing. In response, the government officially stated that the death toll was five. On 7 March 2023, the
Pinarayi Vijayan-led LDF government fulfilled its promise by distributing land titles (pattas) to 37 families, the final batch among the 283 families involved in the Muthanga struggle, granting them land for habitation and cultivation. The
United Democratic Front (UDF) government was held responsible for the firing in Muthanga. It is widely acknowledged that then Forest Minister
K. Sudhakaran played a significant role in the incident. However, The firing was carried out with the support—or at least the tacit approval—of most major political parties in Kerala. Two days before the incident, several political parties had called for a
hartal demanding the eviction of the Adivasis from the Muthanga forests. According to
Down To Earth, political parties "of all hues and pretensions victimized the adivasis with legal devices and sloganeering contrivances," indicating a broader consensus or complicity in the actions leading up to the incident.While some political leaders and civil society groups criticized the government's handling of the situation, the initial eviction operation and the subsequent police action were not strongly opposed by most political parties, suggesting a general political backing for the eviction. The incident brought to the forefront tensions between environmental conservation efforts and indigenous rights. While the Central Empowered Committee (CEC) and
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) advocated for the eviction of Adivasi communities from protected forest areas, this approach faced criticism for overlooking the human rights of the tribal populations. A report in
Down To Earth highlighted that the CEC, influenced by a Delhi-based
NGO, urged the Kerala government to act swiftly against the forest dwellers, leading to concerns about the lack of consideration for the Adivasis' rights and the potential for peaceful resolution. Justice
V.R. Krishna Iyer, in a preliminary report on the incident, condemned the police action as "excessive and totally unwarranted," highlighting that the government had failed to respond to the tribal protest through peaceful means. He further criticized political parties for exploiting the situation for political gain, stating that "polemical politics sleeplessly waits for such occasions," and accused both the ruling and opposition fronts of victimizing the Adivasis through legal and political maneuvers. ==Government Response and Reforms==