Guwahati: Two days after Assam government told the Gauhati High Court that retired IFS officer M.K. Yadava would have no role in the Forest Department “in any capacity,” he appeared at a meeting on the department’s affairs.
Assam Forest Minister Jayanta Mallabaruah posted on social media on Saturday ( November 14) that he had reviewed the preliminary report on the Externally Aided Project (EAP) with senior Forest Department officials. The post named Special Chief Secretary M.K. Yadava and Commissioner & Secretary Om Prakash as attendees.
What the government told the court
On November 12, the Assam government informed the Gauhati High Court that Yadava’s third contractual stint as Special Chief Secretary (Forest) had ended on November 11.
The Cabinet, it said, had decided not to extend his engagement in the Forest Department or in any other capacity there. He had instead been re-engaged for two years as Special Chief Secretary, Mines & Minerals, from November 13, with full administrative and financial powers.
The questions this raises
Attending a meeting is not the same as exercising authority, and a former officer can be invited for technical inputs. But such participation needs an identifiable basis. Was MK Yadava an invitee, a formally appointed adviser, or a representative of the Mines department? Or does he retain informal influence over Forest Department decisions?
The stakes are higher because the meeting was not ceremonial. EAPs involve significant financial and policy decisions, and their review should run through prescribed channels with clear accountability. If serving officers carry formal responsibility while someone outside the chain of command shapes decisions, nobody can say who answers for them.
Five questions the government must answer
First, in what official capacity was MK Yadava invited to the November 14 meeting? Second, was any order issued after November 11 authorising his participation in Forest Department affairs?
Third, did he only offer technical inputs, or did he help review, direct or influence decisions? Fourth, how does his presence square with the government’s submission to the High Court?
And fifth, who is accountable for decisions taken when serving officers and an officer of another department sit together?
Why it matters
The PIL has been closed, and the court made no ruling on the legality of MK Yadava’s earlier engagements. But the Assam government’s own submission set out a clear position on his future link with the department, and the state’s conduct is expected to match what it tells a constitutional court.
The issue is not one officer’s credentials but whether the department’s chain of command is real.
The question the Assam government now has to answer is whether Yadava’s association with the Forest Department has actually ended, or only his designation has changed.