Performance Appraisals of Forest Officers Must Remain Within IFS Hierarchy—Violation Contemptuous: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Tears Down Madhya Pradesh’s Move to Place IAS Officers Over Forest Cadre: “IFS Autonomy Non-Negotiable” - Supreme Court of India, in the long-standing environment matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors., delivered a sharp and unambiguous judgment quashing a Government Order (G.O.) dated 29 June 2024 issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh, which had unlawfully authorized IAS officers such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners to participate in the performance appraisal of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers.

The Court observed that the said G.O. was not merely illegal but amounted to “contemptuous” defiance of prior binding orders of the Supreme Court, particularly the landmark judgment dated 22 September 2000 (Santosh Bharti case) and reiterated directions dated 19 April 2004, which had clearly laid down that performance appraisals of IFS officers must remain entirely within the Forest Department hierarchy, up to the level of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests.

“IFS Officers Answer Only to Their Forest Superiors”—Court Reasserts 2000 Precedent

The case originated as part of the broader judicial oversight in the Godavarman litigation, which has over the years expanded to questions of forest governance, autonomy, and service integrity. In the present instance, the Supreme Court examined the Madhya Pradesh G.O. that instructed:

“Before evaluating the performance of the Divisional Forest Officer… the Conservator or Chief Conservator will seek a note from the District Collector… Similarly, for Chief Conservators… notes will be sought from the Divisional Commissioner… and these shall be considered during the time of Performance Appraisal.”

The Court rejected this model outright, citing it as a regression from established constitutional discipline, and as contrary to binding authority. Citing its own 2000 ruling, the Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai declared:

“Up to the officer of the rank of Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, the reporting authority has to be the immediately superior officer within the Forest Department.”

Reiterating the structure it had earlier established, the Court laid down the unambiguous chain of command:

“For the Assistant Conservator of Forests, the reporting authority is the Divisional Forest Officer… for him, it is the Conservator of Forests… and so on, until the Additional PCCF, whose reports must be written by the PCCF.”

“Only in the case of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests can an officer outside the Forest Service act as reporting authority.”

“The G.O. Is a Breach of Judicial Discipline”—Supreme Court Warns State of Madhya Pradesh

The Bench observed that the 2024 G.O. by Madhya Pradesh was not a mere administrative irregularity—it was a deliberate violation of established Supreme Court directives:

“It appears that while other States were adhering to the practice… the State of Madhya Pradesh was not following this established practice.”

“The said G.O. is rather contemptuous in nature… issued without even seeking clarification or modification of this Court’s prior orders.”

The Court considered initiating contempt proceedings against responsible officers but restrained itself, citing judicial decorum, while noting that:

“We could have very well proceeded to initiate contempt proceedings… however, we refrain ourselves from doing so.”

“Administrative Convenience Cannot Override Rule of Law”—Rebutting State’s Defence

The State of Madhya Pradesh, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the G.O. by citing administrative hierarchy and claimed that the Additional Chief Secretary (ACS) and Principal Secretary (PS) were official heads of the Forest Department by order of precedence.

However, the Court was unmoved. Referring to the All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 and the Confidential Rolls Rules of 1970, the judgment stressed that:

“The reporting authority must supervise the performance of the officer reported upon, and must be from within the same service or department.”

Citing its previous ruling in State of Assam v. Binod Kumar (2024), the Court reiterated:

“Such discretion cannot be construed to mean that someone from outside the department can be given such power… This clearly implies that both authorities must belong to the same service or department.”

The Court also relied on its authoritative judgment in State of Haryana v. P.C. Wadhwa (1987), emphasizing: “A reporting authority must be a person to whom the member of the Service is answerable for his performance… such an authority must be one superior in rank to the member of the Service.”

“States Must Obey Binding Orders”—Court Gives One Last Opportunity

Acknowledging repeated violations by Madhya Pradesh despite clear directives and communications from the Ministry of Environment & Forests and the Department of Personnel and Training, the Court ruled: “We have no hesitation to hold that the impugned G.O. is in violation of the directions of this Court… It is liable to be quashed and set aside.”

The Court allowed the applications and directed the State of Madhya Pradesh: “To reframe the rules by strictly adhering to the directions issued by this Court… and to complete this exercise within one month from the date of this judgment.”

The Supreme Court’s ruling is not just a reiteration of bureaucratic propriety—it is a forceful assertion that constitutional governance demands institutional integrity and obedience to judicial authority. The autonomy of the Indian Forest Service, a specialized cadre entrusted with protecting India’s forests and biodiversity, cannot be compromised by administrative overreach or convenience.

“Except the State of Madhya Pradesh, all the other States are scrupulously adhering to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid orders.”

In striking down the G.O., the Supreme Court has sent a strong message: where judicial orders settle the law, no executive fiat—however well-intentioned—can subvert them.

Date of Decision: 21 May 2025