In a week marked by judicial rebukes and victories for transparency and environmental advocacy, courts in both India and Indonesia delivered rulings that could have far-reaching effects on government accountability and the protection of scientific experts in environmental cases.
On October 17, 2025, the Delhi High Court fined India’s central government Rs 20,000 for concealing crucial facts in a high-profile case concerning the promotion of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer Sameer Wankhede. According to The Economic Times, the court’s frustration was clear: the government had failed to disclose important developments in the ongoing departmental proceedings against Wankhede, a move the bench described as a serious breach of candor.
Wankhede, a 2008 batch IRS officer, has occupied headlines since 2021, when he was accused of demanding Rs 25 crore from Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan’s family by allegedly threatening to implicate Khan’s son, Aryan, in the notorious Cordelia cruise drug bust case during his tenure at the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in Mumbai. The government’s reluctance to promote Wankhede, despite recommendations from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), became the subject of a protracted legal battle.
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had, in December 2024, directed the government to open the sealed cover containing Wankhede’s promotion file and, if recommended by the UPSC, to promote him to additional commissioner with effect from January 1, 2021. Rather than comply, the government challenged the CAT’s order and delayed implementation, only acting when Wankhede initiated contempt proceedings.
During a hearing on Friday, government counsel Ashish Dixit argued that the issuance of a charge memorandum and initiation of regular departmental proceedings on August 18, 2025, justified the use of the sealed cover procedure—a bureaucratic mechanism often employed when an officer is under investigation. He insisted the court had erred by assuming no charge memo or sheet had been issued prior to its August 28 order, which had directed the government to act on the UPSC’s recommendation.
However, Wankhede’s lawyer, T Singhdev, countered that the government’s review petition was little more than a harassment tactic. He pointed out that, while the court had reserved its judgment on July 29, the government had quietly issued a charge sheet on August 18 but failed to inform the court before judgment was delivered on August 28. Crucially, the government also concealed the fact that, on August 27, the CAT had restrained it from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry.
The court minced no words in its rebuke: “We strongly deprecate the petitioner from concealing from this court the order dated August 27, 2025 wherein the petitioner has been restrained from proceeding with the further departmental inquiry against the respondent.” The bench further clarified that, as of the dates relevant to Wankhede’s promotion consideration, the conditions for sealed cover procedures had not been met. With that, the review petition was dismissed, and the government was left not only with a stinging judicial reprimand but also the Rs 20,000 penalty for its lack of transparency.
While the Wankhede case centers on internal government processes and the rights of individual officers, a parallel drama unfolded in Indonesia—one involving the power of scientific testimony and the ongoing struggle to protect environmental defenders from legal intimidation.
In October 2025, a district court in the Jakarta suburb of Bogor dismissed a lawsuit brought by palm oil company PT Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri against two environmental scientists, Bambang Hero Saharjo and Basuki Wasis. The company had sought to punish the professors for their expert testimony in a 2018 court case that found PT Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri liable for wildfires that ravaged 833 hectares (2,058 acres) of land in Central Kalimantan province.
That original case, brought by Indonesia’s Ministry of Environment and Forestry, relied heavily on peatland samples and analysis provided by Bambang, head of the wildfires laboratory at Bogor Institute of Agriculture. The court’s verdict ordered the company to pay 210.5 billion rupiah ($12.7 million) and set aside an additional 89.3 billion rupiah ($5.4 million) for environmental restoration. After unsuccessful appeals all the way to Indonesia’s Supreme Court, the company turned its legal firepower on the scientists themselves, suing them in a district court near their university.
Environmental groups and civil society organizations rallied to the scientists’ defense. As reported by Mongabay Indonesia, Bambang voiced concern over the chilling effect such lawsuits could have: “If we keep getting sued like this, all our time will be spent dealing with lawsuits. Meanwhile, the environment will become increasingly neglected. In the end, it won’t just be Jakarta that suffers, but all of Indonesia, even the world—because the environment is the lifeblood of the planet, and we must protect it together.”
The court’s decision to dismiss the case was met with relief and celebration among activists. Linda Rosalina, executive director of Transformation for Justice, expressed hope that the ruling would embolden other experts: “We hope this ruling will encourage other experts to boldly fight for environmental rights.” Boy Jerry Even Sembiring, national director of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi), called it “a victory for the environment” and a much-needed boost to confidence in the rule of law.
Indonesia’s Environment Minister Hanif Faisol Nurofiq went further, describing the lawsuit as “a form of Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation” (SLAPP) and stating, “This decision demonstrates the judiciary’s commitment to the cause of a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, long championed by environmental experts and advocates.” The minister’s remarks reflect a broader concern: that corporate actors might use the courts to silence or intimidate scientists, witnesses, and activists.
The legal landscape in Indonesia is evolving to protect such participation. Article 48 of the Supreme Court’s 2023 guidelines affirms the rights of individuals to provide expert opinion in environmental litigation, echoing the constitutional guarantee of a clean and healthy environment. A 2009 law further states that no one can be prosecuted or sued in civil court for upholding these rights.
Despite the court’s verdict, the struggle for environmental accountability continues. Walhi has filed new complaints against PT Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri over fires in 2023 that burned nearly 2,000 hectares, and research by Pantau Gambut found that more than 3,400 hectares have burned on the company’s land in recent years. Okto Yugo Setiyo, director of the nonprofit Jikalahari, urged, “The court must immediately execute the verdict against KLM [PT Kalimantan Lestari Mandiri], and all forest-burning companies whose verdicts have been final and binding.”
In both India and Indonesia, these cases underscore the critical importance of transparency, judicial independence, and the protection of those who speak up—whether for government accountability or for the environment. The week’s courtrooms may have been thousands of miles apart, but their decisions resonate with a shared message: honest disclosure and fearless advocacy remain the cornerstones of justice.