Rahul vs. The State Of Uttarakhand

2025 INSC 1344
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

I.A. NOS. 20650 AND 75033 OF 2023
WITH
I.A. NO. 199355 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 202 OF 1995


IN RE:
T. N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD … PETITIONER

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

WITH

TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL) NO. 2 OF 2025


J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, CJI


1. These proceedings arise out of unfortunate circumstances.
2. This Court, for almost a period of the last two years has
been seized of a Suo Moto action pertaining to the illegal
Signature Not Verified
construction and rampant felling of trees in the Corbett Tiger
Digitally signed by
POOJA SHARMA
Date: 2025.11.22
13:23:34 IST
Reason:
Reserve and has been passing orders from time to time.
1


3. Prior to this Court taking cognizance of the matter, the
High Court of Uttarakhand had directed an investigation to be
carried out by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Thereafter, since this Court took cognizance of the matter, the
CBI had parallelly conducted the investigation. The
investigation, as conducted by the CBI, was monitored by this
Court and various orders were passed to that effect from time
to time.
rd
4. It will be relevant to refer to the order dated 23 July 2024
passed by this Court, which reads thus:
“ [ 9 ] I.A. NO. 20650 OF 2023 (CEC REPORT NO.
3/2023 - REPORT OF CEC IN APPLN. NO.
1558/2021 FILED BEFORE IT BY GAURAV
KUMAR BANSAL) WITH I.A. NO. 75033 OF 2023
IN RE : GAURAV KUMAR BANSAL
1. In pursuance of our orders dated 06.03.2024, a
Status Report has been filed by the State of
Uttrakhand pointing out various actions taken
against the officers of the Forest Department.
Learned counsel appearing for the State of
Uttrakhand seeks three months’ time for filing a
further affidavit. Time as prayed for is granted.
2. The Inspector General of Forest (Wildlife), Ministry
of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (Wildlife
Division), has also sent a communication dated
20.07.2024 to Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus
Curiae, pointing out various steps taken in
pursuance of the aforesaid order with regard to
2


finalization of the Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP) for tiger projects/wildlife sanctuaries, the same
is taken on record. It has been requested in the said
communication to grant eight more weeks for
submission of final report. Time as prayed for is
granted.
3.
The CBI also filed its status report, in pursuance
of the directions issued by this Court on 06.03.2024.
The same is taken on record and be resealed and kept
in safe custody. As requested in the said Report, a
further time of six months’ is granted to complete the
investigation. However, the CBI also shall file a
further Status Report after a period of three months.
4. List after three months.”

5. Thereafter, another status report came to be filed by the
th
CBI before this Court on 16 October 2024. The matter was
th
thereafter listed on 20 November 2024. On the said date, this
Court passed the following order:
“ [8] I.A. NO. 20650 OF 2023 (CEC REPORT NO.
3/2023 - REPORT OF CEC WITH I.A. NO. 75033
OF 2023:
1. We have perused the report of the Superintendent
of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation dated
16.10.2024.
2. We are satisfied with the progress of the
investigation.
3. The report is directed to be kept again in sealed
cover.
4. The CBI is directed to submit its further report
after a period of three months from today.
5. List on 19.03.2025.
3


6. The State is also at liberty to file reply within two
weeks from today.”

th
6. Subsequently, again when the matter was listed on 16
January 2025, this Court again granted time to the CBI to file
a report of further investigation carried out. The CBI filed its
rd
3 status report stating therein that investigation is complete.
th
This Court, thereafter, passed the following order dated 19
March 2025:
“ [7] IA No. 20650 of 2023 AND I.A. No. 75033 of
2023 AND I.A. No. 199355 of 2024:
1. With regard to the departmental proceedings
against the officers involved in illegal construction in
the Corbett Tiger Reserve, an affidavit is filed by one
Shri Dhirendra Kumar Singh, who is presently
posted as Deputy Secretary, Forest Department,
Government of Uttarakhand.
2. In the affidavit, the details of the departmental
proceedings against the forest officers have been
given.
3. In the said affidavit, two charts have been placed
on record.
4. Insofar as the first chart is concerned, out of 17
officers, who are in the rank of Ranger, Deputy
Ranger, Foresters and Forest Guards, the
proceedings are completed insofar as 16 officers are
concerned. Unfortunately one of them has died in the
road accident.
5. However the second chart which pertains to the
IFS officers is concerned, the charts would reveal that
the proceedings are moving at a snail’s pace.
4


6. In one of the cases, though the reply to
chargesheet is received as way back as on
22.05.2023, nothing has been done.
7. In case of officer at Sr. No.5, though the comments
of delinquent officers has been received as early as
on 27.01.2025, no further action has been taken.
8.
We deprecate the practice of the State in
proceeding at a great speed against the lower rank
officers but proceeding against the IFS Officers at a
snail’s pace.
9. In respect of one of the officers, the matter has
been pending with the MoEF&CC for a long time. The
chart would show in spite of various reminders, the
MoEF&CC has not responded.
10. We, therefore, direct the State to conclude all the
departmental proceedings with respect to all the
officers within the period of three months from today.
11. In case of the officer at serial No.4, the MoEF&CC
shall send the information to the State Government
as sought by it within a period of a fortnight from
today.
12. We have also perused the report submitted by the
Central Bureau of Investigation. We are satisfied with
the progress of the investigation. The report would
reveal that the investigation is complete and the final
report under Section 173 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 would be filed before the Trial Court
in due course.
13. List these applications after three months for
further orders.
14. We expect the final report to be filed before the
competent Court prior to the next date.”

7. Thereafter, the CBI filed its final charge-sheet under
th
Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On 08
5


September 2025, the State handed over a copy of an affidavit
th
dated 06 September 2025, insofar as the officer concerned,
i.e., Mr. Rahul, the observations in the affidavit were as under:
Status of CBI enquiry:

6


8. The Court thereafter noticed that though sanction was
granted by the State Government in respect of all the other
officers, the sanction was refused in case of said Mr. Rahul.
Certain oral observations were made by this Court when the
th
matter was heard on 08 September 2025 in the presence of
the learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The
matter was heard by a Bench comprising of two of us (Hon’ble
the CJI and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.Vinod Chandran). Prima
facie, the Bench was of the opinion that the State was trying to
shield the said Mr. Rahul. Though, no written orders were
th
passed to this effect, on 08 September 2025 and though the
matter was simply adjourned, it appears that the State sensed
what was going on in the Court. The State granted sanction
th
vide order dated 16 September 2025 and an affidavit came to
be filed on the same day stating therein that the State
Government has decided to grant sanction for the prosecution
of the said Mr. Rahul.
9. This Court accepted the stand of the State Government in
th
the affidavit dated 16 September 2025 and passed the order
th
dated 17 September 2025 as under:
7


“ [1] I.A. NOs. 20650 OF 2023, WITH I.A. NO.
75033 OF 2023 AND I.A. NO. 199355 OF 2024
1. The matter is listed today since on the last date of
hearing it was found that though the State
Government has granted sanction in respect of the
prosecution of all the officers except one, this Court
wanted to find out as to why special treatment was
being given to the said officer. This was also in the
background that on an earlier occasion, this Court
has found that the said officer was given a special
posting despite the prima facie findings against him
by the CEC, which were affirmed by this Court.
2. Today, an affidavit has been filed by the State of
Uttarakhand wherein it is stated that the State
Government has granted sanction for prosecution
against the said officer under Section 218 of
BNSS/197 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted that insofar
as the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act”), the
State Government has also forwarded the papers for
sanction of the Union of India.
3. Insofar as the delay in departmental proceedings
is concerned, the learned Solicitor General submitted
that earlier the department proceedings were
initiated against the said officer for a minor penalty.
However, upon the charge sheet being filed by the
CBI, it has been noticed that he is liable to be charged
for major penalty and therefore, now the charge sheet
is issued to him for major penalty.
4. We accept the submissions of the State
Government. However, we direct the State
Government to conclude the departmental
proceedings against the said officer as expeditiously
as possible, and in any case within a period of three
months from today.
5. We also direct the Union of India to consider the
proposal submitted by the Government of
8


Uttarakhand for grant of sanction under Section 19
of the PC Act.”

th
10. When the matter was listed before this Court on 15
October 2025, it was brought to the notice of this Court that
the said Mr. Rahul has challenged the sanction order dated
th
16 September 2025, by way of a Writ Petition (Criminal)
No. 1220 of 2025 before the High Court of Uttarakhand. It
th
was also noticed that the High Court vide order dated 14
October 2025 had granted a stay to the proceedings against
the said Mr. Rahul. Taking notice of this, this Court passed
th
the following order on 15 October 2025:
“ [1] I.A.NOS.20650/2023 WITH I.A. NOS.
75033/23 & 199355/2024:
1. We are disturbed by certain events that have taken
place during the pendency of the present
proceedings.
2. This Court is seized of a suo moto action
pertaining to the illegal constructions and rampant
felling of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The Court
has been passing orders from time to time.
3. Initially, the Uttrakhand High Court had directed
that an investigation be carried out by the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Accordingly, CBI had
conducted the investigation and an FIR also came to
be filed.
4. The Court has been consistently monitoring the
investigation and the CBI is submitting reports to
9


Court. Parallelly, the departmental proceedings are
also under progress.
5. When the matter was listed before this Court on
08.09.2025, it was noticed that though the State
Government had granted sanction in respect of the
prosecution of all the officers except one, the Court
had questioned the respondent(s)/State as to why
special treatment was given to one officer. It appears
that pursuant to the oral observations made by this
Court on 08.09.2025, the sanction came to be
granted on 16.09.2025.
6. On the next date of hearing i.e. on 17.09.2025, the
Court was informed that the State Government had
granted sanction for prosecution against the said
officer under Section 218 of the 22 BNSS/Section
197 of the Cr.P.C. The Court also recorded that
insofar as the sanction under Section 19 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C.
Act') is concerned, the State Government had
forwarded the papers for sanction to the Union of
India. We had directed the Union of India to consider
the proposal submitted by the Government of
Uttrakhand for grant of sanction under Section 19 of
the P.C. Act.
7. It appears that after the sanction was granted on
16.09.2025, the said officer, namely, Shri Rahul filed
Writ Petition (Crl) No.1220 of 2025 before the High
Court. In the said proceedings, sanction order dated
16.09.2025 came to be challenged. The learned
Single Judge of the Uttrakhand High Court vide order
dated 14th October 2025 has admitted the matter
and granted stay to the effect and operation of the
sanction order dated 16.09.2025.
8. When this fact is brought to the notice of this
Court by the learned Amicus Curiae, Shri Tanvir
Ahmed, learned senior counsel, suo moto appeared
on behalf of Shri Rahul. Shri Ahmed, learned senior
10


counsel, submits that the sanction order dated
16.09.2025 is totally impermissible in law in view of
two judgments by the Constitution Bench of this
Court. It is submitted that the sanctioning authority
did not have the jurisdiction to review the order dated
4th August, 2024, vide which sanction was refused
and subsequently grant the sanction. It is therefore
submitted that in these facts the said Shri Rahul was
advised to file a petition before the High Court. Shri
Ahmed, learned senior counsel, further states that
the party is entitled to take recourse to a legal remedy
available to him in law, if he is aggrieved by an illegal
order.
9. Shri Ahmed, learned senior counsel, states that
the said Shri Rahul was watching the proceedings
before this Court through video conferencing and
therefore noticed the proceedings which were
conducted before this Court on 08.09.2025 and
17.09.2025.
10. We are deeply perturbed by the approach of said
Shri Rahul as well as the High Court of Uttrakhand.
When the said Shri Rahul was continuously following
the proceedings before this Court and was aware
about the oral observations and the orders passed by
this Court, nothing prevented him from intervening
in these proceedings if he was of the view that any of
the orders passed by this Court or any of the
observations made by this Court prejudiced him.
However, in the teeth of the sanction which was
granted during the pendency of the proceedings
before this Court, approaching the High Court to
challenge an order virtually amounts to interference
in the present proceedings. The High Court, no
doubt, is a Constitutional Court and not inferior to
this Court. However, in the judicial matters, when
this Court is seized of the matter it is expected of the
High Courts to keep their hands away. The learned
Judge of the High Court does not even find it
11


necessary to refer to the proceedings before this
Court, though according to Shri Ahmed, learned
senior counsel, the details of the present proceedings
are mentioned in Writ Petition (Crl) NO.1220 of 2025,
filed before the High Court.
11. In that view of the matter, we direct that the
proceedings in Writ Petition (Crl) No.1220 of 2025,
pending before the High Court, are withdrawn from
the High Court of Uttrakhand and transferred to this
Court. To be heard along with this matter. The High
Court of Uttrakhand is directed to transfer the
records of Writ Petition (Crl) NO.1220 of 2025 to this
Court forthwith.
12. Until further orders, the order dated 14.10.2025
passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand in Writ
Petition (Crl) No.1220 of 2025 shall stand stayed.
13. We also issue notice to Shri Rahul (IFS), Chief
Conservator of Forests, (Information Technology),
Forest Headquarters, 85, Rajpur Road, Dehradun-
248001, to remain present before this Court on
11.11.2025 and show cause as to why an action for
committing contempt of this Court be not initiated
against him.
14. List on 11.11.2025
15. The Registrar concerned of this Court shall
ensure that the notice is served to the noticee/Shri
Rahul through the Chief Administrative Officer in the
office of the District Judge, Dehradun.”

11. We have no manner of doubt that when the sanction order
was passed during the pendency of these proceedings before
this Court, and in pursuance of the series of orders passed in
the present proceedings, it was not appropriate on the part of
12


the said Mr. Rahul 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.
12. Though in the first half when the matter was heard, a
serious attempt was made to justify the conduct of the said Mr.
Rahul, it appears that better counsel prevailed during the lunch
recess and when the matter is called out post lunch recess, Mr.
R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the said Mr.
Rahul states that he has already tendered his unconditional
apology in his affidavit. He further states that taking into
consideration the unblemished record of 21 years of past service
and the future 15 years of remaining service, the Court may not
take a harsh view.
13. This Court has always said that the majesty of law lies not
in punishing, but in forgiving.

13


14. 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. 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
orders.
15. When the sanction order was passed by the State
Government taking into consideration the oral observations
th
made by this Court on 08 September 2025, and when the
sanction order was passed after referring to the present
proceedings and series of orders of this Court, the High Court
14


in no case 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.
16. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the unconditional
apology tendered by the said Mr. Rahul and discharge the notice
of contempt issued to him.
th
17. Vide order dated 15 October 2025, we had withdrawn
the Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1220 of 2025 from the High
Court and transferred the same to this Court, and the same is
registered as Transferred Case (Criminal) No. 2 of 2025.
18. Mr. R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
said Mr. Rahul, on instructions, states that he would like to
withdraw the said Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1220 of 2025
reserving his right to challenge the sanction order in the
appropriate proceedings.

19. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1220 of 2025, which has
already been transferred to this Court, is permitted to be
15


withdrawn. In that view of the matter, Transferred Case
(Criminal) No. 2 of 2025 stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
20.
We clarify that if the said Mr. Rahul desires to apply for
discharge or quashing of the proceedings on any other ground
available to him except the validity of the sanction, withdrawal
of the Writ Petition or pendency of the present proceedings
would not come in his way to take recourse to such remedies as
per law. However, if he desires to challenge the validity of the
sanction order, the same can be done by him only before this
Court and no other court.


.................................CJI
(B.R. GAVAI)



……...............................J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)


……...............................J
(N. V. ANJARIA)

NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 11, 2025.
16