The Uttarakhand High Court on Wednesday granted interim relief to former Corbett Tiger Reserve director Rahul, a 2004-batch Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer, by staying the state government’s sanction order permitting his prosecution in a case linked to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into alleged illegal tree felling and unauthorised construction for a tiger safari project in the reserve’s buffer zone.

The single-judge bench of Justice Ashish Naithani, while hearing Rahul’s writ petition challenging the September 16 sanction order, observed that the matter raised “significant questions” about the authority and legality of the state government’s decision to reverse its earlier refusal to grant prosecution sanction without citing any new evidence or material. The court ordered that “no coercive action” be taken against the petitioner until the next hearing and directed that the implementation and effect of the sanction order remain stayed in the meantime.

Justice Naithani also issued notices to the Uttarakhand government and the CBI, directing them to file counter-affidavits within four weeks. The matter has been listed for final hearing on December 11, with the court clarifying that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage.

The prosecution sanction, granted by the state government on September 16, came just a week after the Supreme Court criticised Uttarakhand for previously denying permission to prosecute Rahul, who has been named as an accused in the CBI’s investigation into alleged illegal activities during the planning and execution of the tiger safari project in Corbett’s buffer zone. The project had been conceived as a major wildlife tourism initiative but has since faced allegations of serious environmental violations, including widespread tree felling and construction in restricted forest areas.

According to the state’s submission before the Supreme Court earlier this year, the government initially refused to grant sanction to prosecute Rahul on August 4. However, following the apex court’s observations, the state reversed its position within weeks. In an affidavit filed before the top court, Joint Secretary (Forest Department) Satyaprakash Singh stated: “While respectfully maintaining that the earlier decision to decline sanction was a bona fide one, the state government has now taken a conscious decision to grant sanction to prosecute Shri Rahul as requested by the CBI.”

This reversal prompted Rahul to move the High Court, challenging the validity of the new sanction order. His counsel, Dushyant Mainali, argued that the decision was “arbitrary, without jurisdiction, and in violation of settled principles of administrative law.” Mainali contended that once the state government had declined sanction on August 4, it had become functus officio—a legal term referring to an authority that has exhausted its mandate and cannot revisit a concluded matter without new material or statutory authorization.

“The subsequent decision to grant sanction was taken on the same set of facts and evidence, with no fresh material on record. This reversal, particularly when the CBI had not challenged the initial refusal, renders the September 16 order ex facie illegal,” Mainali argued before the bench. He further submitted that the reversal was done under external pressure and in disregard of the procedural safeguards intended to protect public servants under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

The CBI, represented by counsel Piyush Garg, opposed the plea, asserting that the sanction order was passed after due diligence and legal scrutiny. Garg maintained that the CBI’s request for prosecution had been pending for some time and that the state government’s eventual approval was based on “a conscious and reasoned decision” supported by legal opinion from competent authorities. He cautioned that granting protection to the petitioner at this stage would effectively stall the entire prosecution process.

However, the High Court held that the issues raised in the petition warranted closer judicial examination. It noted that the case involves “substantial questions concerning the scope and ambit of the powers conferred under Section 197 CrPC and the procedural safeguards available to government officials against arbitrary prosecution.” Justice Naithani observed that the legality of reversing a refusal to grant sanction—especially in the absence of any new evidence—directly impacts the maintainability of the prosecution.

“Since these questions strike at the root of the prosecution’s validity, it is appropriate to stay the operation of the impugned order until the matter is finally adjudicated,” the court said in its interim order.

The CBI’s case, registered in 2022, alleges that illegal tree felling and unauthorised constructions were carried out within the Corbett Tiger Reserve’s buffer zone to facilitate the controversial tiger safari project. The project, initially proposed as a tourism initiative to promote wildlife awareness and economic development in the region, soon came under scrutiny after reports suggested large-scale environmental damage, violations of forest and wildlife laws, and procedural irregularities in its approval process.

The Supreme Court had earlier taken a stern view of the issue, calling the alleged destruction “a matter of grave concern” and directing both the state government and the CBI to ensure accountability. The apex court’s observations appeared to have prompted the Uttarakhand government to revisit its earlier decision to withhold prosecution sanction.

Rahul’s petition has revived the debate on the balance between bureaucratic accountability and the protection of public servants from arbitrary prosecution. Legal experts say the High Court’s observations could set an important precedent regarding the procedural limits of state governments when dealing with prosecution sanctions, especially in cases involving the reversal of previously final decisions.

As the matter heads for its next hearing in December, the High Court’s interim order has effectively paused the prosecution against Rahul. The CBI, meanwhile, continues its broader investigation into the Corbett safari project, which includes examining the roles of several officials and contractors allegedly involved in the violations.

The case remains one of the most closely watched environmental and administrative law disputes in recent years, touching upon themes of ecological accountability, bureaucratic discretion, and judicial oversight in governance.