The Supreme Court closed contempt proceedings against IFS officer Rahul after he apologized for moving the Uttarakhand High Court despite the top court hearing the Corbett case. CJI Gavai said, “The majesty of law is not in punishing the guilty but in forgiving.”
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has decided to close the contempt case against Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer Rahul, a former director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve, after he offered an unconditional apology.
The officer had earlier approached the Uttarakhand High Court seeking a stay on his prosecution in a CBI case involving alleged illegal construction and tree cutting inside the Jim Corbett National Park.
The issue came before the Supreme Court because the Uttarakhand High Court had granted a stay on the state government’s order allowing prosecution against the officer — even though the Supreme Court was already hearing the matter.
This action angered the top court, which said that the high court should not have interfered in a case already under its consideration.
On October 15, a bench led by Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran had shown strong disapproval over the development. The bench remarked on how the high court could sit in appeal against the observations and orders of the Supreme Court.
The Uttarakhand government had earlier granted prosecution sanction after several directions from the Supreme Court, which has been closely monitoring issues of illegal constructions and large-scale tree felling within the Jim Corbett National Park.
Taking the matter seriously, the top court had issued a contempt notice to the officer, stayed the high court’s order, and transferred all the related judicial records to itself.
However, during the latest hearing on Tuesday, the Supreme Court took note of Rahul’s unconditional apology and decided to pardon him. The court said it had considered his 21 years of “unblemished services” and his future prospects before closing the proceedings.
Chief Justice Gavai made an important observation, stating,
“The majesty of law is not in punishing the guilty but in forgiving.”
He added that the officer was free to seek remedies such as discharge in the ongoing case before the appropriate judicial forum.
However, the bench also made it clear that the officer
“cannot challenge the grant of sanction to prosecute”,
since it was issued by the state government following the top court’s directions.
Emphasizing judicial discipline, the CJI further remarked that
“though the high courts are not inferior to the Supreme Court, it should not interfere in a matter which is being monitored by the apex court.” He added, “When the Supreme Court is seized of the matter, the high court should not have interfered.”
Earlier, when the contempt notice was first issued, the Supreme Court had summoned the officer in person and asked him to explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him.
The bench had also commented,
“The high court, being a constitutional court, has vast powers. But, when it was the matter of record that the Supreme Court is seized of the matter then the high court should not have entertained the plea and granted the stay…”
The developments in the case were presented to the bench by senior advocate K. Parmeshwar, who is assisting the court as amicus curiae in the long-running Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by T. N. Godavarman in 1995, which deals with forest and environmental conservation issues across India.
In an earlier order dated September 17, the Supreme Court had directed the Uttarakhand government to complete a departmental inquiry against the officer within three months and had also asked the Central government to grant sanction for his prosecution under corruption charges.
During those proceedings, the bench had questioned the state’s leniency towards the officer, asking why he was being given “special treatment” even after adverse observations were made by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC).
The court had remarked that
“heads of governments cannot be expected to be old days’ kings and we are not in a feudal era,”
questioning Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami for appointing the same officer as director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve despite pending departmental proceedings and clear objections from the state’s forest minister and other officials.
The bench noted that a departmental proceeding was already pending against the officer and further said that the chief minister “just ignores it,” even though a notice had clearly stated that the officer should not be posted at the Rajaji Tiger Reserve.
It was also highlighted that the disciplinary proceedings were connected to the Corbett Tiger Reserve, where several officers had already been served show-cause notices related to the illegal construction and tree felling case.
In conclusion, while the Supreme Court accepted the officer’s apology and closed the contempt proceedings, it also issued a stern reminder that judicial hierarchy and respect for ongoing proceedings must be maintained.
Click Here To Read More Reports on Uttarakhand Forest Officer
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
