What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Kerala has not yet formally widened its probe into the 2021 Muttil tree-felling case. Forests and Wildlife Protection Minister Shibu Baby John said the government will consider doing so after the Revenue, Forest and Law departments jointly examine the matter, according to a PTI report published by Hindustan Times on 3 October 2026.
What the government is considering
The proposed next step is a joint examination by the Revenue, Forest and Law departments, after which the government is expected to decide whether to widen the inquiry. The October 3 report describes consideration of that step, not a final government order expanding the probe.
John said the inquiry process had been delayed and called for the circumstances behind the change in the government’s position on tree felling to be investigated. His allegation that the order enabled wider exploitation, including the use of poor people and Scheduled Tribe members as fronts for nominal payments, is his account—not a court finding or independently established fact. PTI reported that he declined to name an individual responsible for an alleged conspiracy.
Recommended Free Tools
What the Muttil case concerns
The controversy centers on Revenue Department G.O.(MS) No.261/2020/Rev., issued on 24 October 2020. It concerned felling reserved trees, except sandalwood, on patta land assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964. The order was allegedly misused to fell valuable trees in Muttil, Wayanad.
#1 Best Overall
The Kerala High Court’s 24 June 2021 judgment in Purushothaman P. v. State of Kerala reproduces the order and records the Advocate General’s submission that it had been withdrawn and a fresh order issued in February 2021. That judgment provides context about the order and its reported withdrawal; it did not determine guilt in the later Muttil criminal case.
How the reported case record has developed
| Date | Reported development | What it establishes—and what it does not |
|---|---|---|
| 24 October 2020 | The Revenue Department issued G.O.(MS) No.261/2020/Rev. on felling reserved trees, except sandalwood, on assigned land. | The order’s date and subject are reproduced in the Kerala High Court judgment. |
| February 2021 | The order was reportedly withdrawn and a fresh order issued. | The High Court judgment records this as the state’s submission; it is not a finding on the criminal allegations. |
| 2021 | A committee involving the Forest Department and other agencies was constituted, according to John as reported by PTI. | John said the committee had not held a sitting and that the file seeking inquiry sanction reached the concerned minister five years later. Those timing and delay claims are his statements. |
| 4 December 2023 | Onmanorama reported that an 84,600-page chargesheet had been filed treating the episode as one case. | This is the outlet’s account of an earlier filing, not a current ruling on the case. |
| 11 February 2026 | Onmanorama reported that the Special Investigation Team filed 36 separate chargesheets involving the Augustine brothers. | The outlet attributed allegations of 41 rosewood trees felled and 204.635 cubic metres of rosewood worth ₹8 crore to the chargesheets. It also reported DNA age analyses indicating that two trees were more than 500 years old. These are reported prosecution claims, not findings of guilt. |
| 25 September 2026 | Kerala Kaumudi reported that a court returned a chargesheet because documents were missing and other matters needed clarification. | The report says the minister sought an explanation from the Forest Department. It does not establish that every filing was returned. |
| 3 October 2026 | PTI reported that the Forest Department had recently filed a chargesheet before a court in Wayanad, alongside the government’s plan to consider widening the probe. | The report does not say whether the court accepted the recent filing. The September and October reports may concern different filings or procedural stages. |
What is alleged about the order and the delay
John alleged that publication of the cancellation order came 75 days after it was issued and that most trees were felled in the interval. PTI reported this as the minister’s claim; the timing is not independently verified by the report. He also argued that a government order could not override legislation passed by the Kerala Legislative Assembly. That is his stated position, not a legal conclusion established by the cited judgment.
Rank #2
His description of a conspiracy should likewise be understood as a call for investigation, not proof that a conspiracy has been established. PTI quoted him saying, “What needs to be uncovered is the conspiracy behind this. The circumstances that led to such a change in stance must be investigated.”
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Pocket Guide to Trees and Shrubs of North America
- Pocket Guide to Trees and Shrubs of North America
- National Geographic Maps
Rank #4
Rank #3
What remains unresolved
- Whether the probe will be formally widened: the government’s decision is still pending the joint departmental examination described by PTI.
- The status of the latest chargesheet: the October report confirms a recent filing, but not its acceptance by the court. The September report describes a returned chargesheet; it should not be generalized to every filing.
- Whether the allegations will be proved: the people described as accused have not been shown as convicted in the cited reporting. Allegations in chargesheets are not findings of guilt.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
