It is a perfect example of how the Supreme Court disregards its own decisions. Its stay order on a CBI investigation into animal poaching in Corbett Tiger Reserve (CTR) has been in effect for the past seven years, despite its repeated ruling that any stay order in criminal matters should not persist for an excessively long period.
A request from an environmentalist from Uttarakhand asking for the stay to be lifted so that the CBI can finish its investigation, which had revealed "connivance of forest officers/officials with poachers," has now been granted by the Supreme Court.
It's interesting to note that CBI also submitted an appeal for vacation of order, citing the results of a preliminary investigation that it carried out.
After learning that 40 tigers and 272 leopards had perished in the state in the previous two and a half years, the HC on September 4, 2018, ordered a CBI investigation into all poaching cases in the state over the previous five years in order to determine the "complicity, involvement or collusion" of serving forest department officials in these incidents.
However, on October 22 of same year, the Supreme Court issued an ex-party ruling in response to an appeal submitted by D S Khati, the state's top wildlife warden and retired principal chief conservator of forests (wildlife).
Advocate Govind Jee, speaking on behalf of environmentalist Atul Sati, appeared before a bench presided over by Chief Justice B R Gavai.
He brought up the case and requested an early hearing. SC granted his request and rescheduled the hearing for November 17.
The petitioner claimed that the HC issued the order after taking into account scientific reports provided by the Wildlife Institute of India and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, and that the extended stay has effectively hindered efforts to identify and dismantle the transnational and transstate network responsible for tiger poaching.
According to case records, CBI also requested that the injunction be vacated in 2023 and included the results of its one month investigation prior to the SC's approval of the stay order.
The organization reported that it discovered a number of anomalies, including an intentional attempt by forest officials to conceal a tiger's death.
The CBI stated, "During inquiry by CBI of this case, photocopy of case records, as made available by the forest department, has been scrutinised and 38 persons including forest officials, private persons, and accused persons have been examined," referring to a case in which tiger and leopard meat and skin were found.
According to a CBI investigation, forest officials may have colluded with poachers. It stated that Corbett was not adhering to the National Tiger Conservation Authority's (NTCA) mortality rules.
"In many instances, prima facie collusion by Uttarakhand forest department officers and officials has surfaced throughout the investigation. According to the investigation, "officers/officials of the forest department also showed gross negligence of NTCA guidelines."
"It is further submitted that the HC only approved the order for a preliminary investigation by the CBI after reviewing the complete record, including the technical reports of the Wildlife Institute of India, the report of the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, and the communication issued by the head of forest force, Uttarakhand, all of which clearly indicate accountability of senior forest officials, including the petitioner (Khati) himself, and in light of the interstate and transnational nature of the network of tiger poaching involved in this case.
According to Sati's petition, "the order was a reasoned judicial determination founded on cogent material and appreciating the urgency, gravity, and geographical spread of a network of tigers poachers, aimed to eliminate/mitigate any future threat to the safety of tigers."
