Supreme Court: ‘The CM is not a king’, Why did the Supreme Court sharply reprimand the Chief Minister of Uttarakhand?

Supreme Court News: The bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, P.K. Mishra, and K.V. Viswanathan stated that the heads of governments cannot be expected to act like kings of the olden days, and that we are not in the feudal era.

New Delhi :The Supreme Court has sharply reprimanded Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami. This reprimand was issued regarding the Chief Minister’s decision to appoint a controversial IFS officer as the Director of Rajaji Tiger Reserve, disregarding the opinions of the state’s Forest Minister and others. The bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, P.K. Mishra, and K.V. Vishwanathan, stated that the heads of governments cannot be expected to act like ancient kings, emphasizing that we are not in the feudal era.

However, the state government informed the bench that the appointment order had been withdrawn on September 3. The judges responded, “In this country, there is something called the principle of public trust. We cannot expect the heads of the executive to act like ancient kings, doing only what they said… We are not in the feudal age… Just because he is the Chief Minister, does that mean he can do whatever he wants?”

The government argued that the officer was being targeted. The bench also questioned why the Chief Minister had a special affinity for the officer, considering there was pending departmental action against him. Senior advocate A.N.S. Nadkarni, representing the state, claimed that the officer was being targeted, and pointed out that the note indicated the officer should not be posted at Rajaji Tiger Reserve. The court remarked that the Chief Minister was “simply ignoring” this.

Several senior officers had expressed objections to the appointment. The court noted that even the Under Secretary, Principal Secretary, and the state’s Forest Minister had supported this view. Despite this, the appointment was made. The court commented, “If desk officers, Under Secretaries, Principal Secretaries, and Ministers disagree, it is at least expected that you would consider why these people oppose the proposal.”

Regarding the departmental action against the officer, lawyer Nadkarni argued that “you cannot sacrifice a good officer who has no issues against him.” The court then asked, “If there are no issues, why is departmental action being taken against him?” The judges noted that departmental action cannot be initiated against someone without prima facie evidence.