The Supreme Court of India, in an order, issued a strong observation on judicial propriety, stating that while High Courts are Constitutional Courts, it is “expected of the High Courts to keep their hands away” from matters of which the Supreme Court is already seized.
The observation came as a bench comprising CJI B R Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stayed an order by the Uttrakhand High Court. The High Court’s order had halted a prosecution sanction against a senior IFS officer, Shri Rahul, in connection with illegal constructions in the Corbett Tiger Reserve—a case being actively monitored by the Supreme Court.
The bench, stating it was “deeply perturbed,” proceeded to withdraw the officer’s writ petition from the High Court to itself and issued a notice for contempt of court to the officer.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court expressed deep disapproval of both the officer’s action in approaching the High Court and the High Court’s decision to intervene.
The bench’s order stated: “The High Court, no doubt, is a Constitutional Court and not inferior to this Court. However, in the judicial matters, when this Court is seized of the matter it is expected of the High Courts to keep their hands away.”
The Court noted that the officer, Shri Rahul, was “continuously following the proceedings before this Court” via video conferencing and was aware of the orders and observations. The bench remarked that “nothing prevented him from intervening in these proceedings” if he felt prejudiced.
Instead, the officer approached the High Court. The Supreme Court held that this “virtually amounts to interference in the present proceedings.”
The Court also noted that the High Court’s stay order “does not even find it necessary to refer to the proceedings before this Court,” despite the officer’s counsel admitting those proceedings were mentioned in the writ petition.
Background of the Dispute
The developments stem from a suo moto action monitored by the Supreme Court concerning illegal constructions and tree felling in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, which is also the subject of a CBI investigation.
The Supreme Court had, during a hearing on September 8, 2025, “questioned the respondent(s)/State as to why special treatment was given to one officer,” Shri Rahul, whose prosecution sanction had been withheld while others were sanctioned. Following the Court’s oral observations, the state government granted the sanction on September 16, 2025.
The Supreme Court was informed by the learned Amicus Curiae that after this sanction was granted, Shri Rahul filed Writ Petition (Crl) No. 1220 of 2025 in the Uttrakhand High Court. On October 14, 2025, a learned Single Judge of the High Court admitted the petition and stayed the “effect and operation of the sanction order.”
Arguments of the Officer’s Counsel
Shri Tanvir Ahmed, learned senior counsel appearing suo moto for Shri Rahul, submitted that the sanction order was “totally impermissible in law,” arguing the sanctioning authority lacked jurisdiction to “review the order dated 4th August, 2024, vide which sanction was refused.” He stated the officer was advised to file the petition as he was entitled “to take recourse to a legal remedy available to him in law.”
The Supreme Court’s Directions
Based on its analysis, the Supreme Court issued the following binding directions:
- Transfer of Case: The proceedings in Writ Petition (Crl) No. 1220 of 2025 are “withdrawn from the High Court of Uttrakhand and transferred to this Court.”
- Stay of High Court Order: The Supreme Court ordered that “Until further orders, the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by the High Court of Uttrakhand… shall stand stayed.”
- Contempt Notice: The Court issued a notice to Shri Rahul (IFS) “to remain present before this Court on 11.11.2025 and show cause as to why an action for committing contempt of this Court be not initiated against him.”
Other Developments from the Hearing
Pune’s BBPP Road Project Halted Pending Environmental Clearance
In a separate application (I.A. No. 218391 of 2024), the Court directed that the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) cannot commence its proposed Bal-Bharati Paud Phata (BBPP) road project, which would “cut the Vetal Hill/Law College Hills,” without first obtaining Environmental Clearance (EC) from the State Environment Impact Assessment Authority (SEIAA). The Court cited a 2020 NGT order regarding a “similar alignment” that required such clearance, which the Supreme Court itself had upheld in 2021.
Judgment Reserved in Delhi Ridge Matter
In the matter concerning the Delhi Ridge (I.A. NO. 117204 OF 2024), the bench heard arguments from the learned Amicus Curiae and the learned Additional Solicitor General and reserved its judgment.
