In a stern rebuke, the Supreme Court on Wednesday highlighted the unsuitability of feudal governance in modern administration while examining the controversial appointment of an Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve in Uttarakhand. The court questioned Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami’s decision to appoint the officer despite significant opposition from various state authorities.
During the proceedings, the apex court, led by Justice B.R. Gavai and comprising Justices P.K. Mishra and K.V. Viswanathan, expressed concerns over the chief minister’s disregard for the advice of the state’s forest minister and other senior officials, who had recommended against the appointment of the officer, Rahul, previously the director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve.
The court emphasized the doctrine of public trust, asserting that government heads should not act as autocrats making unilateral decisions. “There is something like a public trust doctrine in this country. The heads of the executive cannot be expected to be old days’ kings that whatever they have said, they will do,” the bench observed, questioning the CM’s apparent favoritism, “Why should the chief minister have special affection for him (the officer)?”
Further scrutiny revealed that departmental proceedings were still pending against the officer concerning his previous tenure at the Corbett Tiger Reserve. Despite this, CM Dhami had overridden multiple levels of bureaucratic advice, raising questions about the application of due diligence in his decision-making process.
Senior advocate A.N.S. Nadkarni, representing the state, defended the officer, asserting that he faced no charges from major investigative agencies and described him as a target of unfair accusations. However, the court countered, highlighting that departmental proceedings typically indicate serious concerns and maintained that a clean chit could not be issued until these were resolved.
In light of these discussions, the state government retracted the officer’s appointment on September 3, a decision that came just before the court hearing. With the withdrawal of the contested appointment, the Supreme Court decided to close the proceedings, noting that the state’s latest action rendered any further orders unnecessary.
