BHOPAL: The Supreme Court ordered an examination of the implications of the Madhya Pradesh govt's new mechanism for the Performance Appraisal Reports (PAR) of Indian Forest Service (IFS) officers. The Court noted that the matter involves an important aspect concerning the integrity of the Forest Department and has ramifications across the country.
The Supreme Court ruled, "Taking into consideration the important aspect of the matter and in order to maintain the integrity of the Forest Department, we are of the view that the present issue requires to be considered in a larger perspective. We, therefore, request the learned Amicus Curiae to examine the issue, since it will have ramifications all over the country and assist this Court."
The next hearing is slated for December 11. Amicus Curiae is the lawyer appointed by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which was constituted by the Supreme Court for the implementation of its orders on the environment, forest, and wildlife.
In its response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Madhya Pradesh govt defended its decision to implement a new mechanism for evaluating IFS officers, arguing that it complies fully with existing laws. The govt claimed that the new process does not violate any regulations and that the PIL's request for a stay on the order should be dismissed.
The govt refuted the petitioner's assertions that the order contravened the Supreme Court’s directives, particularly in relation to the landmark T N Godavarman Thirumulpad case, and emphasised that the new mechanism is in line with the amended All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules of 2007. The Madhya Pradesh govt specifically countered claims that the new order would undermine the conservation focus of the Indian Forest Service (IFS). It clarified that officers from departments such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners would only contribute additional reports on welfare schemes and not on core forest management duties. The government argued that these reports offer a broader view of an officer’s responsibilities but do not interfere with the primary objective of forest protection.
The state further argued that any interference with the new appraisal mechanism would harm the administration of forests in Madhya Pradesh. The government pointed out that the state boasts the largest forest cover in India, including critical wildlife populations, and that halting the implementation of the new order could lead to irreparable losses in conservation efforts.
The PIL was filed by Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who argued that the new order introduced by the Madhya Pradesh govt fundamentally alters the performance appraisal process for IFS officers. Bansal contended that the inclusion of non-forest officers—such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners—into the evaluation of forest-related work, including Joint Forest Management, the Forest Rights Act, and mining activities within forest areas, was legally and administratively unsound. Bansal cited several landmark Supreme Court cases, including T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, to argue that such interference undermines the core mandate of the IFS, which is focused on forest and wildlife conservation.
The Madhya Pradesh Indian Forest Service Association (MPIFSA) also raised strong objections to the new order. In a letter submitted to Chief Minister Dr Mohan Yadav, the association warned that the new appraisal process would demoralise forest officers and jeopardise key environmental initiatives, including those spearheaded by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The association pointed out that Madhya Pradesh’s success in wildlife conservation, as a "Tiger State" and "Vulture State," could be compromised by the new mechanism.
The MPIFSA further argued that the government's decision to shift the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) process from Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs) to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) violates Supreme Court directives. The association claimed that the involvement of officers from other services (like IAS/PCS) in the appraisal process is contrary to the Supreme Court's order, which mandates that senior officers within the Forest Department handle the evaluation.
The government reiterated that Madhya Pradesh plays a vital role in national and global conservation efforts, housing the largest forest cover in India and protecting endangered species such as tigers, leopards, and alligators. It argued that the new appraisal process is in line with the government's overall commitment to forest conservation, and the order reflects a genuine attempt to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives.
In contrast to the protests from the IFS association, IAS officers have expressed support for the new order. They noted that four other states are already following similar procedures. However, the IFS officers reminded the Court that the government of Andaman and Nicobar Islands previously faced legal consequences after implementing a similar change, which was ultimately deemed to be in violation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
The Supreme Court ruled, "Taking into consideration the important aspect of the matter and in order to maintain the integrity of the Forest Department, we are of the view that the present issue requires to be considered in a larger perspective. We, therefore, request the learned Amicus Curiae to examine the issue, since it will have ramifications all over the country and assist this Court."
The next hearing is slated for December 11. Amicus Curiae is the lawyer appointed by the Central Empowered Committee (CEC), which was constituted by the Supreme Court for the implementation of its orders on the environment, forest, and wildlife.
In its response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Madhya Pradesh govt defended its decision to implement a new mechanism for evaluating IFS officers, arguing that it complies fully with existing laws. The govt claimed that the new process does not violate any regulations and that the PIL's request for a stay on the order should be dismissed.
The govt refuted the petitioner's assertions that the order contravened the Supreme Court’s directives, particularly in relation to the landmark T N Godavarman Thirumulpad case, and emphasised that the new mechanism is in line with the amended All India Services (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules of 2007. The Madhya Pradesh govt specifically countered claims that the new order would undermine the conservation focus of the Indian Forest Service (IFS). It clarified that officers from departments such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners would only contribute additional reports on welfare schemes and not on core forest management duties. The government argued that these reports offer a broader view of an officer’s responsibilities but do not interfere with the primary objective of forest protection.
The state further argued that any interference with the new appraisal mechanism would harm the administration of forests in Madhya Pradesh. The government pointed out that the state boasts the largest forest cover in India, including critical wildlife populations, and that halting the implementation of the new order could lead to irreparable losses in conservation efforts.
The PIL was filed by Advocate Gaurav Kumar Bansal, who argued that the new order introduced by the Madhya Pradesh govt fundamentally alters the performance appraisal process for IFS officers. Bansal contended that the inclusion of non-forest officers—such as District Collectors and Divisional Commissioners—into the evaluation of forest-related work, including Joint Forest Management, the Forest Rights Act, and mining activities within forest areas, was legally and administratively unsound. Bansal cited several landmark Supreme Court cases, including T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India, to argue that such interference undermines the core mandate of the IFS, which is focused on forest and wildlife conservation.
The Madhya Pradesh Indian Forest Service Association (MPIFSA) also raised strong objections to the new order. In a letter submitted to Chief Minister Dr Mohan Yadav, the association warned that the new appraisal process would demoralise forest officers and jeopardise key environmental initiatives, including those spearheaded by Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The association pointed out that Madhya Pradesh’s success in wildlife conservation, as a "Tiger State" and "Vulture State," could be compromised by the new mechanism.
The MPIFSA further argued that the government's decision to shift the Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) process from Divisional Forest Officers (DFOs) to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (PCCF) violates Supreme Court directives. The association claimed that the involvement of officers from other services (like IAS/PCS) in the appraisal process is contrary to the Supreme Court's order, which mandates that senior officers within the Forest Department handle the evaluation.
The government reiterated that Madhya Pradesh plays a vital role in national and global conservation efforts, housing the largest forest cover in India and protecting endangered species such as tigers, leopards, and alligators. It argued that the new appraisal process is in line with the government's overall commitment to forest conservation, and the order reflects a genuine attempt to comply with the Supreme Court’s directives.
In contrast to the protests from the IFS association, IAS officers have expressed support for the new order. They noted that four other states are already following similar procedures. However, the IFS officers reminded the Court that the government of Andaman and Nicobar Islands previously faced legal consequences after implementing a similar change, which was ultimately deemed to be in violation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines.
You may also like
Australian TikToker Bella Bradford Passes Away from Rhabdomyosarcoma Prior to National Cancer Awareness Day
Jharkhand mining scam: CBI raids 20 locations, seizes Rs 60 lakh, gold
One minute test can check for condition millions with common job are prone to
Britain swarming with Portuguese man o' war as beachgoers urged to watch out for 'floating terrors'
US elections: Trump or Harris; What awaits the winner of Tuesday's vote
