Live
- PM Modi highlights govt's efforts to make Odisha prosperous and one of the fastest-growing states
- Hezbollah fires 200 rockets at northern, central Israel, injuring eight
- Allu Arjun's Family Appearance on Unstoppable with NBK Breaks Viewership Records
- Unity of hearts & minds essential for peace & progress, says J&K Lt Governor
- IPL 2025 Auction: I deserve Rs 18 cr price, says Chahal on being acquired by Punjab Kings
- EAM Jaishankar inaugurates new premises of Indian embassy in Rome
- Sailing vessel INSV Tarini embarks on second leg of expedition to New Zealand
- Over 15,000 people affected by rain-related disasters in Sri Lanka
- IPL 2025 Auction: RCB acquire Hazlewood for Rs 12.50 cr; Gujarat Titans bag Prasidh Krishna at Rs 9.5 crore
- Maharashtra result reflects the outcome of Congress' destructive politics: BJP's Shazia Ilmi
SC questions U’khand CM
‘Heads of executive can’t be expected to be old days’ kings’
New Delhi: Heads of governments cannot be expected to be “old days’ kings” and we are not in a “feudal era”, the Supreme Court said on Wednesday, questioning Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami for appointing an IFS officer as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, disregarding the opinions of the state’s forest minister and others. However, the state government told a bench headed by Justice B R Gavai that the order posting the Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer as the director of the tiger reserve was withdrawn on September 3.
The bench, also comprising Justices P K Mishra and K V Viswanathan, was hearing a matter concerning the appointment of IFS officer Rahul, a former director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve, as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve. The court observed that there was a specific noting right from the first officer, which was endorsed by the deputy secretary, the principal secretary and also by the state’s forest minister that Rahul should not be posted as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve. “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, adding, “We are not in a feudal era.” “Why should the chief minister have special affection for him (the officer)?” the bench asked, adding, “Just because he is the chief minister, can he do anything?” It also observed that a departmental proceeding was pending against the officer concerned. 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”. “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.
