Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from the Supreme Court’s suo moto action concerning illegal construction and rampant tree felling within the Corbett Tiger Reserve. The investigation, initially directed by the Uttarakhand High Court and later monitored by the Supreme Court, was conducted by the CBI. The CBI filed a final report, leading to the requirement of prosecution sanction against involved officers. While the State of Uttarakhand granted sanction for most officers, it initially refused sanction for a senior IFS officer, Mr. Rahul.During a hearing on September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court orally questioned this disparity. Subsequently, on September 16, the State granted sanction against Mr. Rahul, referencing the Court’s observations. However, Mr. Rahul filed a writ petition before the Uttarakhand High Court challenging this sanction order. The High Court admitted the petition and stayed the sanction.Taking note, the Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval. It held that when sanction is granted during the pendency of its own continuous proceedings and based on its observations, the validity of that sanction cannot be adjudicated by any other forum. It transferred the writ petition to itself, stayed the High Court’s order, and issued a contempt notice to the officer. The Court later accepted his unconditional apology, permitted withdrawal of his petition, and clarified that any future challenge to the sanction’s validity must be made exclusively before the Supreme Court.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the Supreme Court taking suo motu cognizance of environmental violations in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, monitoring parallel investigations by the CBI which were initially directed by the Uttarakhand High Court. The Court consistently oversaw the CBI’s progress through periodic status reports and issued directions to expedite departmental proceedings against accused officers. A critical juncture arose when the State, after the Court’s oral observations, granted prosecution sanction against a senior officer, Mr. Rahul, who then challenged this sanction before the Uttarakhand High Court, obtaining a stay. In response, the Supreme Court, in its order dated October 15, 2025, transferred the writ petition to itself, stayed the High Court’s order, and initiated contempt proceedings against the officer. The final judgment of November 11, 2025, accepted the officer’s apology, permitted the withdrawal of his petition, and established the legal principle that the validity of a sanction issued pursuant to its ongoing proceedings can only be challenged before the Supreme Court.
READ ALSO:From Death Row to Freedom: The Supreme Court’s Historic Curative Verdict in the Nithari Case