WTI admits blacklisting, confirms revocation after closed-door meeting; key government records remain undisclosed as officials maintain silence
Bilal Bhat
Srinagar 24 June 2026: A Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) project report once deemed serious enough to trigger blacklisting by the Jammu & Kashmir Department of Wildlife Protection has now become the centre of a growing transparency controversy after the organisation confirmed that the blacklisting was revoked, even as key government records remain out of public view and senior officials continue to maintain silence.
The controversy revolves around a Biodiversity Assessment, Documentation and Conservation Plan relating to Tatakuti Wildlife Sanctuary and the Kherra and Kullian Conservation Reserves.
After weeks of investigation, emails, calls, messages and repeated requests for official clarification, Awami Reporter has uncovered a series of contradictions, unanswered questions and unexplained administrative decisions that now warrant closer public scrutiny.
WTI Confirms Blacklisting Was Revoked
In a written response sent to Awami Reporter, WTI confirmed that the blacklisting imposed against the organisation was revoked through an order dated June 2, 2026, following a meeting between senior WTI officials and the Chief Wildlife Warden.
The organisation admitted that the blacklisting arose from an “unsatisfactory” project report which, according to WTI, failed to meet departmental expectations due to deficiencies in data presentation and documentation.
WTI further stated that after discussions with wildlife authorities and members of its senior management, the Chief Wildlife Warden revoked the blacklisting while taking into account the organisation’s 25-year record of work in Jammu & Kashmir.
The admission itself raises a crucial question:
How does an organisation move from blacklisting to reinstatement when the very report that triggered the action is still being rewritten?
A New Team, A New Report, But The Blacklisting Is Gone
WTI’s response contains a significant disclosure.
The organisation has admitted that a completely new team has been constituted to rework the report and submit a revised version to the department.
At the same time, WTI maintains that sufficient field work was conducted, enough data was collected and no manipulated or fabricated data was used.
This creates a troubling contradiction.
If the report contained sufficient field work and authentic data, why was blacklisting imposed in the first place?
Conversely, if the deficiencies were serious enough to warrant blacklisting and internal disciplinary action, on what basis was the blacklisting withdrawn before the revised report was completed and evaluated?
Neither WTI nor the concerned government authorities have publicly addressed this contradiction.
The Missing Order
Perhaps the most striking aspect of the entire episode is the absence of the very document that could answer many of the questions.
WTI claims that a revocation order was issued on June 2, 2026.
Yet despite repeated requests, neither WTI nor government authorities have made the order available for public scrutiny.
When asked to provide a copy of the revocation order, its reference number and details regarding the conditions attached to the revocation, WTI declined and advised this reporter to obtain the document from the office of the Chief Wildlife Warden.
The obvious question remains:
If the revocation was lawful, justified and properly reasoned, why does the order remain unavailable to the public?
Recovery Amount Refunded, But No Proof Provided
WTI has also confirmed that the recovery amount associated with the matter has been refunded.
However, the organisation has declined to provide supporting documents.
No amount has been disclosed.
No date of refund has been disclosed.
No order authorising the refund has been disclosed.
No proof of transfer has been provided.
No explanation has been offered regarding whether the refund was linked to the revocation order.
In a matter involving public institutions and public accountability, such omissions raise obvious concerns.
Administrative Action Taken, But Details Withheld
WTI further admitted that administrative action was taken against staff members responsible for the episode.
Yet when Awami Reporter sought clarification regarding the nature of the disciplinary action, the officials involved and the findings recorded, WTI refused to disclose any details, stating that such actions were internal matters.
The position adopted by WTI leaves another important question unanswered:
If individual employees were held responsible for deficiencies serious enough to result in disciplinary action, what exactly were those deficiencies and how did they cease to justify blacklisting?
Why overnment Officials Maintain Silence ?
Throughout the course of this investigation, Awami Reporter made repeated efforts to obtain official clarification from the government side.
Multiple calls, messages and requests for comments were made to senior officials connected with the matter.
Among those contacted was Chaturbhuj Behra IFS /PCCF / Chief Wildlife WardenChief Wildlife Warden, Jammu & Kashmir, whose office is central to both the original blacklisting and the subsequent revocation claimed by WTI.
Repeated attempts were also made to contact Ms. Sheetal Nanda, IAS, Commissioner/Secretary to Government, Forest, Ecology & Environment Department, Jammu & Kashmir, seeking clarification regarding the blacklisting, revocation process and related administrative decisions.
Despite repeated efforts over several days, no substantive response was received from either office.
The silence is particularly significant because the questions being asked are straightforward:
– Was the blacklisting revoked?
– Under what order?
– On what grounds?
– Were any conditions imposed?
– Was the recovery amount refunded?
– What official reasoning justified the reversal?
These questions remain unanswered by the authorities empowered to answer them.
Questions Over Alleged FIR Threat
The controversy became more troubling when references to possible FIR proceedings were allegedly made while this reporter was pursuing information regarding the matter.
Instead of receiving documentary clarification or official records, concerns were raised about potential criminal action.
The issue was subsequently brought to the attention of senior authorities.
Yet the fundamental question remains unanswered:
Why should a journalist seeking documentary verification of an administrative decision be confronted with references to criminal proceedings instead of receiving factual responses?
The issue goes beyond a single story. It touches upon the broader relationship between public authorities and the press in a democratic society governed by the rule of law.
Rule of Law Demands Transparency
Indian courts have consistently held that administrative decisions must be capable of withstanding public scrutiny.
Blacklisting is among the most serious actions that can be taken against an organisation dealing with government agencies. Equally significant is any decision to withdraw or revoke such blacklisting.
Both actions must be supported by reasons, records and transparency.
The issue before the public today is not whether WTI deserved blacklisting or deserved reinstatement.
The issue is whether the process was transparent, whether the reasons were properly recorded, and why those records continue to remain inaccessible despite repeated requests from the media.
The Documents That Can End The Controversy
At present, the entire controversy can be substantially clarified through disclosure of a handful of documents:
– Original blacklisting order.
– Revocation order dated June 2, 2026.
– Representations submitted by WTI.
– Minutes of meetings leading to revocation.
– Recovery and refund records.
– Departmental observations on deficiencies in the original report.
– Correspondence between WTI and the Department of Wildlife Protection concerning the revocation.
Until those documents are placed in the public domain, questions surrounding the blacklisting, reinstatement and official handling of the matter will continue to persist.
For now, one fact stands out above all others:
WTI has acknowledged the blacklisting. WTI has acknowledged disciplinary action. WTI has acknowledged that a new team is rewriting the report. Yet the government authority that allegedly revoked the blacklisting remains silent, and the order that could settle the controversy remains out of public view.
