SC Warns High Courts Against Parallel Petitions When Apex Court Is Seized
The Supreme Court of India has strongly rebuked the Uttarakhand High Court for staying a prosecution sanction in a case concerning illegal construction and deforestation in the Corbett Tiger Reserve, even while the same matter was pending before the apex court. The bench emphasised that high courts must refrain from entertaining separate petitions that could interfere with ongoing Supreme Court proceedings.
In its order, Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran stated that while the High Court is indeed a Constitutional Court, it is expected that when a matter is pending before the Supreme Court, the High Courts should refrain from intervening in those judicial matters.
Background and Factual Context
The Supreme Court had been monitoring a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into illegal constructions and tree-felling in Corbett. Initially, the Uttarakhand Government was questioned for failing to grant prosecution sanction; following the apex court’s observations on September 8, 2025, the sanction was approved on September 16, 2025.
Shortly thereafter, Chief Conservator of Forests Rahul, the officer against whom the sanction had been granted, filed a petition before the Uttarakhand High Court on October 14, 2025, seeking to stay the sanction order. The High Court admitted the petition, despite the matter remaining under the Supreme Court’s consideration.
Supreme Court’s Criticism and Directions
The Supreme Court observed that the high court’s action “virtually amounts to interference” with its ongoing proceedings. The bench noted that the officer had been actively following the Supreme Court proceedings via video conference and was aware of their status before filing a separate petition.
Consequently, the Supreme Court directed the withdrawal and transfer of the petition pending in the Uttarakhand High Court, stayed the High Court’s order dated October 14 2025, and issued a notice to Rahul to appear on November 11, 2025, to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated.
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Direction
The Supreme Court reiterated that high courts must not entertain petitions that overlap with matters already under its consideration. The Supreme Court’s order reinforces that high courts must not act in ways that interfere with or duplicate the apex court’s ongoing oversight, particularly in sensitive environmental and enforcement matters.
Case Title: IN RE: T.N. GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
