A widening group of lawyers, academics, researchers, activists and former civil servants has urged Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to retract remarks made by a Supreme Court Bench about environmental litigants, arguing that the comments could weaken public-interest scrutiny of large projects.
The intervention follows observations made on May 11 by a Bench comprising the CJI and Justice Joymalya Bagchi during proceedings linked to the expansion and modernisation of Pipavav Port in Gujarat. The court was hearing a matter arising from a National Green Tribunal order that had dismissed an appeal challenging environmental and coastal regulation zone clearance for the project.
“Show us even a single project in this country where these alleged environmental activists have said that we welcome this project,” the Bench remarked during the hearing. The court also questioned whether litigation was being used to stall development, while saying environmental concerns should be raised through concrete suggestions rather than blanket opposition.
A group of 72 lawyers, law students, law faculty members, law researchers and activists trained in law has written an open letter to the CJI, saying the remarks cast unfair doubt on citizens and groups who use statutory and constitutional remedies to question environmental approvals. The signatories are associated with the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights, a platform of law professionals.
The letter said the comments went beyond the outcome of one case and signalled a broader jurisprudential concern: a shift from treating environmental litigation as part of constitutional governance to viewing it as a suspect form of obstruction. It argued that environmental public-interest litigation and appeals before the National Green Tribunal are legitimate enforcement actions, not presumptively motivated attempts to impede development.
Several organisations and a separate group of former civil servants have also written to the CJI, demanding withdrawal of the observations. They warned that framing environmental scrutiny as reflexively anti-development was factually inaccurate, constitutionally troubling and potentially dangerous. The former civil servants’ group said such comments could discourage communities from approaching courts and tribunals where administrative clearances are contested.
The controversy has reopened a long-running debate over how courts should balance infrastructure expansion with ecological safeguards. Supporters of the Supreme Court’s observations argue that projects cleared by expert authorities and tribunals should not be indefinitely delayed by litigation, particularly when the country is expanding ports, roads, energy systems and industrial corridors. They say prolonged disputes can raise costs, affect employment and undermine investor confidence.
Environmental lawyers and civil society groups counter that court review remains essential because statutory clearances are often challenged on grounds of incomplete appraisal, inadequate public consultation, inconsistent expert reports or insufficient protection for affected communities. They argue that litigation has helped shape environmental governance through principles such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle, polluter pays and the public trust doctrine.
During the Pipavav Port hearing, counsel for the appellant raised concerns over fisheries, marine species and the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment. The area was described as important for fish landings in Saurashtra, with concerns linked to construction and operational impact. Justice Bagchi observed that economic viability was not a consideration for environmental impact assessment, while the Bench also discussed whether the project area was a turtle nesting ground or involved only transient movement of marine species.
The Supreme Court allowed the appellant to file a review plea before the National Green Tribunal to point out whether specific issues had been duly considered in the environmental impact assessment. The tribunal was asked to examine the matter, leaving open a narrower route for scrutiny rather than stopping the project at the Supreme Court stage.
The letter from the legal group asked the CJI to reaffirm that NGT decisions, while carrying appropriate weight, remain subject to appellate review on substantial questions of law under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act. It also urged reaffirmation of the role citizens play in enforcing environmental duties within the constitutional framework.
Prafulla Samantara, national convenor of Lok Shakti Abhiyan and one of the signatories to the wider open letter, said citizens raising concerns about inadequately appraised projects were not obstructing the state but fulfilling a constitutional obligation. The letter invoked Article 51A of the Constitution, which places a fundamental duty on citizens to protect and improve the natural environment, including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife.
