Took Wrong Step On Account Of Not Getting Appropriate Legal Advice: Supreme Court Discharges Contempt Notice Issued To Forest Officer
The Supreme Court was considering a matter where a contempt notice was issued to a Forest Officer.
Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran & Justice N. V. Anjaria, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has discharged a contempt notice issued to Forest Officer Rahul, a former Director of Corbett Tiger Reserve, after accepting the unconditional apology tendered by him. The Apex Court noted that on account of not getting appropriate legal advice, he took a wrong step of approaching the High Court when the issue was pending before the Supreme Court.
The Apex Court was considering a matter where a contempt noice was issued to a Forest Officer.
The 3-Judge Bench of Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N. V. Anjaria stated, “The said Mr. Rahul is personally present in the Court today. It appears that on account of not getting appropriate legal advice, he took a wrong step of approaching the High Court when the issue was pending before this Court. The High Court, at least, ought to have perused the sanction order in which a reference has been made by the State Government to various orders passed by this Court.”
“We are, therefore, inclined to accept the unconditional apology tendered by the said Mr. Rahul and discharge the notice of contempt issued to him”, it held.
Factual Background
The matter emanated from the illegal construction and rampant felling of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve. Prior to the Apex Court taking cognisance of the matter, the Uttarakhand High Court had directed an investigation to be carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI filed its final charge-sheet and the State handed over a copy of an affidavit concerning the then Director Corbett Tiger Reserve, i.e., Mr Rahul. The Court noticed that though a sanction was granted by the State Government in respect of all the other officers, the sanction was refused in the case of the said Officer.
The State granted sanction vide order dated September 16, 2025, for the prosecution of the Officer. This order came to be challenged before the Uttarakhand High Court. The High Court had granted a stay to the proceedings. The Apex Court then directed that the proceedings in the Writ Petition, pending before the High Court, be transferred to the Apex Court. The High Court’s order also came to be stayed.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that when the sanction order was passed during the pendency of these proceedings before the Apex Court, and in pursuance of the series of orders passed in the present proceedings, it was not appropriate on the part of the Officer to have approached the High Court. “If he was of the opinion that on account of any of the observations made in the orders passed by this Court, his rights were being prejudiced, then nothing prevented him from approaching this Court to seek appropriate orders. However, it appears that the said Mr. Rahul took such a decision on the basis of legal advice”, it added.
The Bench was of the view that, on account of not getting appropriate legal advice, he took a wrong step of approaching the High Court when the issue was pending before the Apex Court. “The High Court, at least, ought to have perused the sanction order in which a reference has been made by the State Government to various orders passed by this Court. Time and again we have stated that the High Courts are not inferior to the Supreme Court. However, as and 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 pending before this Court. In the teeth of the observations made in the sanction order referring to the various orders passed by this Court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition and passed interim order”, it held.
The Bench made it clear that when the sanction order was passed by the State Government, taking into consideration the oral observations and when the sanction order was passed after referring to the present proceedings and series of orders of this Court, the High Court should have entertained such a petition and stayed the sanction order. “When the sanction was granted in view of the observations made by this Court, no other Court, other than this Court could have considered the issue with regard to the validity of the sanction”, it added.
Thus, accepting the unconditional apology tendered by the Officer, the Bench permitted the Writ Petition challenging the sanction order to be withdrawn.
Cause Title: In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1344)