Supreme Court Threatens Contempt Against Jharkhand Chief Secretary Over Forest Sanctuary Delay

New Delhi – In a stern rebuke underscoring the judiciary's thinning patience with executive inertia, the Supreme Court of India has severely reprimanded the State of Jharkhand for its "clear contempt" of court orders regarding the declaration of the Saranda and Sasangdaburu forests as protected areas. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, has directed the state's Chief Secretary to appear personally on October 8, 2025, to show cause why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him for the repeated failure to comply with previous undertakings.

The Court's decision marks a critical escalation in a protracted legal battle for the protection of one of India's most ecologically significant regions. The matter, heard within the ambit of the landmark environmental case, In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors , highlights a persistent conflict between conservation mandates and competing developmental interests, placing the state government's credibility under intense judicial scrutiny.

A History of Broken Promises and Shifting Stances

The legal saga began with a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order dated July 12, 2022, which directed the Jharkhand government to consider declaring the Saranda and Sasangdaburu forests—renowned for their rich biodiversity and pristine Sal forests—a sanctuary. However, prolonged inaction from the state compelled the applicants to move the Supreme Court.

Responding to the Court's intervention, the state government appeared to make progress. In affidavits filed on February 20, April 16, and April 29, 2025, the government assured the Court of its intent to act. It submitted concrete proposals to declare 57,519.41 hectares as the Saranda Wildlife Sanctuary and 13,603.806 hectares as the Sasangdaburu Conservation Reserve. These proposals were sent to the prestigious Wildlife Institute of India (WII) in Dehradun for expert comments.

A pivotal moment came on April 29, 2025, when the state, through an affidavit, gave a "clear indication" to the Court. It committed that upon receiving approval from the WII, it would complete all necessary formalities, including securing approvals from the State Wildlife Board and the Cabinet, to issue the final notification. Trusting this undertaking, the Court granted the state a two-month period to comply.

The WII submitted its positive report on May 30, 2025, seemingly clearing the path for the final notification. However, in a startling reversal, the state government changed its course. The Court was informed that on May 13, 2025—even before receiving the WII report—the government had constituted a committee to "review the boundary/area of the proposed sanctuary." The justification for this review was the Geological Survey of India's (GSI) identification of potential mining prospects within the proposed protected region.

The Court's Unwavering Stance on Contempt

The Supreme Court took a "serious view" of this volte-face, which directly contradicted the multiple affidavits submitted by the state. The bench observed that the government’s actions amounted to a deliberate disregard for its own sworn statements and the Court’s orders.

"We are of the considered view that the State Government of Jharkhand is in clear Contempt of the order passed by this Court on 29.04.2025," the bench declared unequivocally. It recalled the specific assurances given when the state's Secretary was present in court, emphasizing the breach of trust.

The Court's order now places the state's highest-ranking bureaucrat, the Chief Secretary, in the legal crosshairs. The directive for his personal appearance to "show cause" is a significant step, signaling that the Court will no longer tolerate delays or evasive tactics. However, an escape clause was provided: the Chief Secretary's personal appearance would be exempted if the government fully complies with its April 29 undertaking before the next hearing date.

Legal Implications: Mandamus and Executive Accountability

This case serves as a powerful illustration of the judiciary's role in enforcing executive accountability, particularly in matters of environmental protection. The Court has explicitly warned that should the state fail to comply, it will be "compelled to issue a Mandamus," a potent judicial writ that would command the state government to perform its duty and act in accordance with its earlier promises.

The threat of a mandamus is legally significant. It represents a direct judicial intervention to compel executive action, a tool reserved for instances where a public authority has failed in its statutory or public duty. By invoking this, the Court is signaling its readiness to move beyond mere admonishment to direct, enforceable commands.

For legal practitioners, this development reinforces several key principles:

1. Sanctity of Affidavits: The Court's reaction underscores that undertakings made via affidavit are not mere procedural formalities but solemn promises, the breach of which can attract severe consequences, including contempt of court.

2. Judicial Oversight in Environmental Governance: The case falls under the continuing mandamus of the T.N. Godavarman matter, which has for decades empowered the Supreme Court to act as a guardian of the nation's ecological health. This order reaffirms the Court's unwavering commitment to that role.

3. Contempt Jurisdiction as an Enforcement Tool: The Court is wielding its contempt jurisdiction not merely as a punitive measure but as a coercive tool to ensure compliance and uphold the rule of law.

The Future of Saranda and Sasangdaburu Forests

The Supreme Court's ultimatum has brought the fate of the Saranda and Sasangdaburu forests to a critical juncture. The state government is now faced with a clear choice: either honor its commitment and proceed with the notification of the wildlife sanctuary and conservation reserve, or face the legal consequences of contempt proceedings and a potential mandamus.

The government's citation of "mining prospects" as a reason for its reversal highlights the classic environment-versus-development dilemma. However, the Court's firm stance suggests that promises made before the highest judicial body in the land cannot be casually discarded in favor of shifting economic priorities. The upcoming hearing on October 8, 2025, will be decisive, not only for the future of these pristine forests but also as a testament to the judiciary's power to hold the executive to its word.

---

Case Details: In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India & Ors, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 202/1995