The Supreme Court on Tuesday (November 11, 2025) took strong exception to an order of the Uttarakhand High Court staying the State government’s sanction to prosecute a former Director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve in connection with an ongoing Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into illegal tree felling and unauthorised construction for the Corbett Tiger Safari project in the reserve’s buffer zone.
A Bench of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria said it was “amazed” at the High Court’s intervention, particularly when the CBI investigation was being directly monitored by the top court.
“…we are amazed at the approach of the High Court. The High Court should have at least perused the sanction order, where a reference is made to our earlier orders. Time and again, we have said that the High Courts are not inferior to the Supreme Court. However, when on the judicial side, the Supreme Court is seized of a matter, the High Court is expected to give due respect to the proceedings before this Court,” the Bench observed.
The High Court, on October 14, had stayed the State government’s order issued a month earlier, granting sanction to prosecute the 2004-batch Indian Forest Service officer Rahul, who goes by a first name. The sanction followed the Supreme Court’s earlier censure of the State for extending “special treatment” to the officer, who was appointed Director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve despite being under suspension for his alleged role in irregularities related to tree felling and unauthorised construction during his tenure as Director of the Corbett reserve.
Earlier, the Bench had directed Mr. Rahul to appear before it on November 11 to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for moving the High Court despite being aware that the matter was pending before the Supreme Court.
On Tuesday (November 11, 2025), the Bench expressed reservations over senior advocate R. Basant, appearing for Mr. Rahul, attempting to justify his client’s conduct. “During the course of the hearings, a serious attempt was made to justify the conduct of Mr. Rahul. However, it appears that common sense prevailed during the lunch recess and when the matter was called out post-lunch, Mr. Basant, the Ld. counsel states that Shri Rahul has already tendered his unconditional apology,” the court recorded in its order.
During Tuesday’s (November 11, 2025) hearing, the Bench expressed reservations over senior advocate R. Basant, appearing for Mr. Rahul, initially attempting to justify his client’s conduct. The court, however, noted that “better sense prevailed” during the recess, and that Mr. Rahul subsequently tendered an unconditional apology through his counsel.
‘Not appropriate’
The court made it categorically clear that it was “not appropriate” for Mr. Rahul to have approached the High Court when the matter was pending before the Supreme Court. “If he was of the opinion that, on account of any of the orders or observations passed by this Court, his rights were prejudiced, he could have sought appropriate orders here,” it said.
Taking note of Mr. Rahul’s unblemished service record spanning over two decades, the Bench refrained from initiating contempt proceedings. While accepting his apology, the court underscored that the true majesty of law lies not in retribution but in restraint.
“This Court has always held that the majesty of law lies not in punishing, but in forgiving. Shri Rahul is personally present before the Court. It appears that, owing to improper legal advice, he took the misguided step of approaching the High Court while the matter was pending before this Court,” the Bench recorded in its order. Accepting the officer’s unconditional apology, the court directed that the proceedings pending before the High Court be withdrawn and transferred to the Supreme Court.
The Bench was informed of the High Court’s order by senior advocate K. Parmeshwar, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae. The single-judge Bench of Justice Ashish Naithani had granted interim relief to the 2004-batch officer, holding that the matter raised “significant questions” regarding the competence of the State government to review its earlier decision declining sanction in the absence of any fresh material.
“Since these issues strike at the very root of the maintainability of the prosecution, it would be appropriate… to stay the operation of the impugned order until such questions are finally adjudicated,” the High Court had said. Accordingly, it had stayed the operation of the September 16 sanction order until the next hearing, while calling for counter-affidavits from the State and the CBI within four weeks.
The Supreme Court was hearing an application filed by advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who had flagged the illegal felling of approximately 3,000 trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve without requisite permissions, and the construction of permanent structures in violation of the Wildlife Protection Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act.
In March 2024, the apex court had ordered departmental proceedings against the delinquent officials and upheld a 2023 order of the Uttarakhand High Court directing a CBI probe into the larger conspiracy. The CBI subsequently named eight officials in its investigation, including Mr. Rahul, the then Director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve and the senior-most among the accused.
On September 8, when the court was informed that Mr. Rahul was the only officer against whom the State had declined to grant a sanction to prosecute, it had accused the State government of “protecting” the officer.
Published – November 11, 2025 10:54 pm IST
