The Supreme Court on Wednesday criticized the Uttarakhand government for what it called a “snail’s pace” in moving against senior officers accused of illegal constructions in Corbett Tiger Reserve. A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih directed the state to conclude all departmental proceedings against the officers within three months.
The court took on record an affidavit from the state government detailing the proceedings initiated against the officers. Referring to a chart of action, the bench said the government was quick to act against junior-level officers, but showed no such haste for senior ones. The contrast in treatment formed the core of the court’s rebuke, with the bench making clear that the disparity in the pace of disciplinary action was unacceptable and warranted judicial intervention to force the state’s hand.
Junior officers faced action, seniors didn’t
Departmental proceedings were completed against 16 of the 17 officers in the rank of ranger and deputy ranger, the court noted. Proceedings against senior officers, however, were moving slowly. The court’s observation came during a hearing that also dealt with eco-sensitive zone (ESZ) notifications for Rajaji National Park and Jim Corbett National Park. The juxtaposition of these two issues in a single hearing showed the broader environmental concerns surrounding the region, where both protected areas face pressures from development and administrative lapses.
The National Environment Policy of 2006 defines an ESZ as areas with identified environmental resources of incomparable value requiring special attention for conservation due to their setting, wildlife, biodiversity, historical and natural values. These zones act as buffers around protected areas, regulating and restricting certain activities to minimize the negative impact on fragile ecosystems. The notification of such zones is a statutory process that involves scientific assessment, public consultation, and final approval by the central government, a process that can stretch on for years if proposals are revised or contested.
Related: Supreme Court Delivers Major Rulings This Week
For the officers in question, the practical stakes are straightforward: the three-month deadline means the state must now decide their fate quickly, or explain to the court why it hasn’t. That’s a tighter timeline than most departmental inquiries run on, especially when the officers involved hold senior positions and have more at stake in the outcome. The directive effectively compresses what could otherwise be a lengthy disciplinary process into a fixed window, placing the onus on the state government to prioritize these cases over other administrative work. Failure to adhere to the timeline would likely invite further scrutiny from the bench, which has already demonstrated its willingness to call out delays in no uncertain terms.
ESZ notification still pending
On the ESZ issue, the state government’s counsel said a revised proposal was forwarded to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change on March 11. The bench asked the ministry to consider the proposal and take steps for publishing the final notification after following due procedure. The revised submission suggests that earlier iterations of the proposal did not meet the required standards or faced objections, necessitating a fresh look by the central authorities. The due procedure referenced by the bench typically includes public hearings, input from state wildlife boards, and assessment by the ministry’s technical experts before a final notification can be gazetted.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the ministry, assured the court the process would be completed at the earliest. The court fixed the matter for consideration after 12 weeks. This timeline gives the ministry a defined period to act on the revised proposal, after which the court will review the progress made. The assurance given by Bhati carries weight, as the court will hold the ministry to that commitment when the matter is next taken up.
The case has its roots in allegations of illegal construction inside the tiger reserve, which sits in the foothills of the Himalayas and is home to one of India’s most celebrated tiger populations. The court’s impatience with the state’s pace was evident in its comparison of how junior officers were handled versus senior ones. The reserve itself is a critical habitat for the Bengal tiger, and unchecked construction within its boundaries poses direct threats to wildlife corridors and the ecological integrity of the area. The allegations against the officers, if proven, would represent a serious breach of the protective regulations that govern such reserves, making the swift conclusion of disciplinary proceedings all the more consequential for the enforcement of environmental law in the region.