Khati appears again at the center of a case that has refused to settle, as the Supreme Court moves to reconsider whether a stalled CBI investigation into tiger poaching in Corbett Tiger Reserve should finally resume, as published by the Deccan Herald. The notice issued to multiple state and central authorities highlights the unresolved tension between legal process and conservation urgency, a divide that has repeatedly allowed harmful delays to shape the fate of tigers in India’s most well-known protected areas.
A Legal Freeze That Never Made Sense
The petitioner argues that the 2018 stay on the CBI probe was obtained without full disclosure, particularly regarding evidence that indicated involvement of senior officers, including Khati. Lawyers told the bench that the CBI had already uncovered disturbing signals—records suggesting manipulation, contradictions in official reports, and procedural gaps that aligned too neatly with the interests of those in power. If this claim holds, it reflects a familiar pattern in which senior officials slow or divert investigations whenever accountability threatens institutional comfort.
The stay order paused a trajectory that should have gained speed. Corbett Tiger Reserve had already faced scrutiny for illegal resort expansion, forest encroachment, and infrastructure intrusions. These pressures strained the system that should have safeguarded tigers. When poaching incidents emerged, including the arrest of two men in Nepal with a tiger skin linked to networks operating across Haryana and Uttarakhand, the case’s scope broadened. Khati’s alleged connection to the failures added intensity, as the accusations suggested internal obstruction at a moment when external networks were becoming clearer.
The petitioner claims the High Court directed the CBI inquiry only after examining detailed reports from the Wildlife Institute of India and the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau. Those findings, coupled with records from Uttarakhand’s forest force, outlined how tiger poaching in the region reflected wider trafficking mechanisms—a pattern explored in analyses of the tiger poaching global trafficking machine. The stay order, therefore, did more than pause a case; it interrupted a path toward exposing a network capable of harming tiger populations far beyond Corbett.
The Responsibility That Comes With Authority
Khati’s position as a former Principal Chief Conservator of Forests places the allegations in a different category. When field-level staff falter, the consequences are local. But when senior administrators intervene—whether intentionally or through negligence—the damage scales upward. Tiger poaching networks thrive on such gaps, moving skins and bones across borders with the confidence that oversight will collapse before the chain is exposed. This is precisely why the Supreme Court’s fresh notice matters: it recognizes that senior-level involvement, if proven, cannot be dismissed as procedural noise.
Corbett’s history reveals how failures at the top cascade downward. During earlier petitions, activists had already warned that the reserve’s ecological stress was not being taken seriously. Infrastructure creep, expanding tourism pressure, and permissive land-use decisions weakened the integrity of buffer and corridor zones. The reemergence of poaching allegations confirmed those fears. When enforcement collapses, poachers exploit the chaos. When leadership collapses, they thrive.
Khati’s counsel argued that the allegations are prejudicial and that time is needed to file a proper response. But the concern expressed by petitioners is that delay has already served those responsible. A stay lasting years effectively shields wrongdoing even if no verdict has been reached. In the fight against tiger trafficking, time is not neutral—it is decisive.
The source material presented to the court frames this problem clearly, as reported by Deccan Herald. It shows how administrative opacity weakened the ability to trace networks that have grown more sophisticated, adapting routes and altering operations whenever they sense institutional hesitation. In such contexts, poaching is not merely a criminal act; it is a system that expands whenever accountability stalls.
A Moment That Demands Full Exposure
For Corbett’s tigers, the renewed notice is less a legal milestone than how fragile enforcement remains. Khati’s name surfaces not because of personal conflict but because allegations tied to his tenure illuminate critical failures in how poaching investigations are handled. India cannot claim leadership in tiger conservation while tolerating gridlock at the highest levels of wildlife administration.
The Supreme Court’s intervention offers a narrow but vital window. It forces institutions to answer directly for past choices, to explain why a case supported by multiple wildlife agencies was paused despite strong indications of organized crime. Tigers do not survive bureaucratic hesitation. They survive when systems recognize that every delay feeds a trafficking network that grows more dangerous with each passing year.
If this notice finally brings clarity—and if those responsible are held answerable—the result will matter far beyond Corbett. It will signal that even the most powerful names can be scrutinized, and that tiger conservation in India is not merely symbolic. For the species that depends on these decisions, the truth must surface without further obstruction.
Source: Deccan Herald, India.
Photo: Deccan Herald, India.
