Chief Ministers Not "Kings": Supreme Court On Uttarakhand Appointment

Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami's move to appoint a controversial IFS officer as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, disregarding the opinions of the state's forest minister and others, has drawn strong reprimand from the Supreme Court. Heads of governments cannot be expected to be "old days' kings" and "we are not in a feudal era", said the Bench of Justices BR Gavai, PK Mishra and KV Viswanathan.

The state government, however, told the bench that the appointment order was withdrawn on September 3.

"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... We are not in a feudal era... Just because he is the chief minister, can he do anything?" the judges said.

The bench also questioned why the Chief Minister has "special affection" for the officer, observing that a departmental proceeding is pending against him.

Senior Indian Forest Service officer Rahul has disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Senior advocate ANS Nadkarni, who represented the state, said the officer is being targeted.

Pointing out that the noting had said the officer should not be posted at the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, the court said the chief minister "just ignores it".

The appointment of Indian Forest Service officer Rahul, a former director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve, as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve was severely discouraged by senior officers.

The court observed that there was a specific noting from the first officer. This was endorsed by the deputy secretary, the principal secretary and the state's forest minister.

"If you disagree right from the desk officer, the deputy secretary, the principal secretary, the minister, then the least that is expected is that there is some application of mind as to why he is disagreeing with the proposal," it said.

"You cannot sacrifice a good officer against whom there is nothing," Mr Nadkarni had argued. "If there is nothing, then why are you holding departmental proceedings against him?" the court asked. Unless there is some prima facie material, departmental proceedings are not initiated against anyone, the judges added.