‘High Courts Must Keep Their Hands Away When Supreme Court Is Seized Of A Matter’: Supreme Court Pulls Up Uttarakhand HC Over Corbett Sanction Stay
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran directed that proceedings in a criminal writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court, concerning the sanction for prosecution of a forest officer accused of involvement in illegal constructions and tree felling in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, be withdrawn and transferred to the Supreme Court. The Court stayed the High Court’s interim order that had suspended the sanction for prosecution and criticised the High Court for entertaining the plea while the matter was pending before it. “The High Court, no doubt, is a Constitutional Court and not inferior to this Court. However, in judicial matters, when this Court is seized of the matter, it is expected of the High Courts to keep their hands away,” the Bench observed.
The matter before the Supreme Court arose from ongoing proceedings concerning alleged illegal constructions and felling of trees in the Corbett Tiger Reserve. During the pendency of suo motu proceedings initiated by the apex court, a criminal writ petition was filed before the Uttarakhand High Court seeking to challenge the sanction for prosecution of a forest officer implicated in the alleged irregularities. The High Court entertained the plea and passed an interim order staying the sanction for prosecution.
The issue reached the Supreme Court after this development came to its notice during the ongoing hearing in connected matters relating to environmental violations in protected forest areas. The Union of India, represented through the Additional Solicitor General, submitted that the High Court had interfered with proceedings already under consideration by the Supreme Court. The Amicus Curiae and the learned counsel appearing for the parties placed the relevant materials before the Court, including the High Court’s interim order and the communication records relating to the grant of sanction.
The Court examined the sequence of events and the substance of the allegations against the officer, which included unauthorised construction activities and damage to forest land within the reserve. The relevant provisions invoked included those under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and related notifications governing protected areas. The Supreme Court considered the propriety of the High Court’s intervention during the pendency of its own proceedings on the same subject.
The judges stated that the question of sanction for prosecution arose directly from the orders of the Supreme Court itself. “When this Court has taken cognizance of the issue and is monitoring the developments in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, entertaining a petition on the same subject and staying an order connected with these proceedings is wholly inappropriate.”
They clarified that the High Court’s action could have disrupted the implementation of measures already under the Supreme Court’s supervision. “The sanction for prosecution in question arises out of materials and directions flowing from these proceedings. Any order staying such sanction would directly affect the ongoing exercise under the supervision of this Court.”
The Bench further recorded: “Such action amounts to interference in the course of justice and, therefore, cannot be countenanced. Judicial discipline demands that when this Court is seized of a matter, all other courts in the country must refrain from dealing with issues having a bearing upon it.”
Expressing concern about the conduct of the officer who approached the High Court, the Bench added: “The officer concerned, having knowledge of these proceedings, chose to approach the High Court. This conduct demonstrates disregard for the authority of this Court and amounts to interference in the administration of justice.”
The Court held: “We accordingly direct that the criminal writ petition pending before the High Court of Uttarakhand shall stand withdrawn to this Court. The interim order passed by the High Court staying the sanction for prosecution shall remain suspended until further orders of this Court.”
“The officer concerned shall personally remain present before this Court on the next date of hearing to show cause why proceedings for contempt of court should not be initiated against him. The Registry is directed to communicate this order forthwith to the Registrar General of the High Court of Uttarakhand for compliance.”
Case Title: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran
