SC questions U’khand CM’s authority in controversial appointment of IFS officer
New Delhi: In a strongly worded judgement on Wednesday, the Supreme Court rebuked Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami for appointing an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer, Rahul, as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve. The court questioned the Chief Minister’s decision to override the opinions of multiple officials, including the state’s forest minister, calling it a throwback to a “feudal era.”
The Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice B R Gavai and including Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, highlighted the importance of the “public trust doctrine” in governance. “The heads of the executive cannot be expected to be old days’ kings that whatever they have said, they will do,” the bench observed. “We are not in a feudal era.”
The controversy originated from the appointment of Rahul, a former director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve, as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve. Despite a series of objections from senior officials, including the forest minister, the Chief Minister proceeded with the appointment, raising questions about the integrity of the decision-making process.
“There is something like a public trust doctrine in this country,” the bench stated, emphasising that the Chief Minister’s actions must be grounded in reason and transparency. “Why should the Chief Minister have special affection for him [the officer]? Just because he is the Chief Minister, can he do anything?” the court asked.
The court noted that there was a clear consensus among various officials against Rahul’s appointment. “If you disagree right from the desk officer, the deputy secretary, the principal secretary, the minister, then the least that is expected is that there is some application of mind as to why he is disagreeing with the proposal,” the bench added.
In defence of the state’s actions, senior advocate A N S Nadkarni argued that the officer was not under any criminal investigation, stating: “He is a good officer. In fact, somebody else is targeting him. You cannot sacrifice a good officer against whom there is nothing.” Nadkarni emphasised that the disciplinary proceedings against Rahul were related to his tenure at the Corbett Tiger Reserve, where several officers had been issued show-cause notices. However, the court was not convinced. “If there is nothing, then why are you holding departmental proceedings against him?” the bench asked, pointing out that such proceedings are not initiated without prima facie evidence. “The Chief Minister has gone against the advice of everyone,” the court observed.
During the hearing, the bench also referred to a newspaper report that highlighted objections from both the forest minister and the chief secretary regarding Rahul’s appointment. “You gave an impression that the newspaper reporting is not correct. When we saw the news, there was no error in the newspaper reporting. Whatever is reported in the newspaper is factually correct,” the bench remarked.
In a final twist, the state government informed the court that the controversial appointment had been withdrawn on September 3. A copy of the order was submitted to the bench, which then concluded the proceedings. “In that view of the matter, no orders are necessary. The proceedings are closed,” the Supreme Court declared.
