Supreme Court raps Uttarakhand High Court for staying prosecution of former Director of Corbett Tiger Reserve over illegal tree-felling

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, November 11, 2025, took strong exception to the Uttarakhand High Court’s decision to lift the State government’s sanction to file a case against a former Director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve in connection with the ongoing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into illegal logging and unauthorized construction for the Corbett Tiger Safari project.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria said he was “surprised” by the Supreme Court’s intervention, especially at a time when the CBI investigation was being directly monitored by the top court.

“…We are stunned by the approach of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should have at least reviewed the sanction order referred to in our earlier judgments. We have repeatedly said that High Courts are not inferior to the Supreme Court. However, from a judicial standpoint, when the Supreme Court takes up a matter, the Supreme Court is expected to give due regard to the proceedings before this Court,” the Bench said.

The Supreme Court on October 14 gave sanction for the prosecution of Rahul, a 2004-batch Indian Forest Service officer who goes by the same name, withdrawing the order issued by the State government a month ago. The sanction comes after the Supreme Court had earlier condemned the State for giving “special treatment” to the officer appointed as Director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve despite his suspension for his alleged role in irregularities related to logging and unauthorized construction during his tenure as Director of Corbett reserve.

Earlier, the Bench had directed Mr. Rahul to appear before it on November 11 to explain why contempt proceedings should not be filed against him for moving the matter to the Supreme Court, despite being aware that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.

On Tuesday, November 11, 2025, the Bench expressed reservations about the appearance of senior advocate R. Basant on behalf of Mr. Rahul, who sought to justify his client’s conduct. “During the proceedings, a serious attempt was made to justify Mr. Rahul’s conduct. But it appears that common sense prevailed during the lunch break and when the matter was raised after lunch, Mr. Basant, Ld. counsel stated that Shri Rahul had already tendered his unconditional apology,” the court order said.

During the hearing on Tuesday, November 11, 2025, the Board expressed reservations about senior advocate R. Basant, who appeared on behalf of Mr. Rahul and initially tried to justify his client’s conduct. However, the court said “common sense prevailed” during the break and Mr Rahul later offered an unconditional apology through his lawyer.

‘Not suitable’

The court made it categorically clear that it was “not appropriate” for Mr. Rahul to approach the Supreme Court while the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. “If he was of the opinion that his rights were prejudiced by any order or observation passed by this Court, he could seek appropriate orders here,” the court said.

Considering Mr. Rahul’s impeccable service record of over two decades, the Board refrained from initiating contempt proceedings. While accepting his apology, the court underlined that the true glory of law lies in restriction, not punishment.

In its judgment, the bench noted: “This Court has always held that the glory of law lies in pardoning and not in punishing. Shri Rahul is present before the Court in person. It appears that due to improper legal advice, he has taken the wrong step of approaching the Supreme Court while the matter is pending before this Court.” Accepting the police officer’s unconditional apology, the court decided to withdraw the ongoing trial in the Supreme Court and send it to the Supreme Court.

The bench was briefed about the Supreme Court’s decision by senior advocate K. Parmeshwar, who was assisting the court. friendly curiae. A single-judge Bench of Justice Ashish Naithani had granted interim relief to the batch officer in 2004, holding that the matter raises “significant questions” about the State government’s power to review its earlier decision denying sanction in the absence of any new material.

“Since these issues fundamentally affect the continuation of the investigation, it would be appropriate to stay the implementation of the impugned decision until such questions are finally decided,” the Supreme Court said. Accordingly, he postponed the operation of the September 16 sanction order till the next hearing and sought counter-affidavit from the State and CBI within four weeks.

The Supreme Court was hearing an application filed by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who pointed out illegal felling of nearly 3,000 trees in Corbett Tiger Reserve without necessary permits and construction of permanent structures in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act and the Forest (Protection) Act.

In March 2024, the top court had ordered departmental proceedings against the guilty officials and upheld the 2023 order of the Uttarakhand High Court directing a CBI probe into the larger conspiracy. The CBI later named eight officials in its investigation, including Mr. Rahul, the then Director of Corbett Tiger Reserve and the most senior among the accused.

On September 8, when the court was informed that Mr Rahul was the only police officer against whom the State had refused to allow prosecution, it had accused the State government of “protecting” the officer.

It was published – 11 November 2025 22:54 IST