New Delhi: The Uttarakhand government has taken a “conscious decision” to grant sanction to prosecute former Corbett Tiger Reserve director, an Indian Forest Officer (IFS), for his alleged role in the large-scale illegal felling of trees and unauthorised construction in the reserved forest area.
The move comes a week after the Supreme Court pulled up the state for declining the Central Bureau of Investigation’s request to allow the officer’s prosecution.
“This officer appears to be very special to you,” CJI B.R. Gavai-led bench told Uttarakhand government counsel Abhishek Attrey during the hearing on 9 September, recalling how the state had posted the officer named Rahul as the director of Rajaji Reserve despite his serious involvement in the Corbett case.
The bench was particularly irked when it learnt that the state had pursued departmental action against Rahul, while refusing the sanction to prosecute him. It took a grim view of the state’s stand and warned action against its Chief Secretary if it did not come clear on its decision within a week.
The CBI undertook the probe following two separate orders by the Uttarakhand High Court and the Supreme Court. A court can take cognisance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant, only after the appropriate government or authority grants sanction to prosecute them. This sanction has to be taken under the criminal procedure code as well as the anti-corruption law, called the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).
In its latest affidavit filed before the top court Tuesday evening, the Uttarakhand government informed the bench that based on a “legal advice”, the state had decided to “revisit” the question of grant of sanction. This was done in view of the sufficient factual developments that had taken place.
However, the state sought to defend its earlier decision to not accord the sanction against Rahul, claiming it was a bonafide one. It denied the allegation that the state was favoring or protecting any officer. “…..all decisions, which are taken, are bonafide and based upon the views formed in peculiar facts of each case,” the affidavit submitted.
Defending its role, the state said that it was the bonafide view of the state that Rahul’s role in the case called for a departmental action. Therefore, a chargesheet was issued to him in September 2022.
In April this year, however, when the CBI shared a copy of its enquiry report with the state, the latter, on its perusal, felt that the charges levelled against Rahul in the departmental proceedings required modification and charges for major penalties are required to be added.
Hence, in July 2025, a fresh chargesheet was issued to him, in supersession of the earlier chargesheet.
“I state and submit that the question regarding grant/refusal of sanction was examined by the state government in detail. It was the bonafide view of the state that the case in hand may perhaps be a case in which departmental proceedings for major penalty may suffice and the investigation report does not justify grant of sanction as requested by the CBI,” read the affidavit, signed by Satyaprakash Singh, Joint Secretary, Forest, Uttarakhand government.
The affidavit maintained there was no intention to protect any officer and that the decision was based on legal advice, in accordance with law.
(Edited by Vidhi Bhutra)
Also read: ‘He seems very special to you’—SC after Uttarakhand refuses CBI bid to prosecute Corbett ex-director