Groups of former civil servants, lawyers, legal and environmental activists have issued open letters criticising Chief Justice Of India Surya Kant’s remarks last week about attempts by “alleged environmentalists and activists” to stall development projects.
On May 11, a bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard a plea challenging the National Green Tribunal’s (NGT) dismissal of an appeal against the environmental clearance (EC) granted for the expansion of Pipavav Port in Gujarat.
The CJI-led bench granted partial relief. “Although we are not inclined to agree… that the NGT has dismissed the appeal without assigning any reasons, we grant liberty to the appellant to move a review application before the NGT,” it ordered.
However, the CJI’s observations during the hearing prompted a pushback.
“Show us even a single project in this country where these alleged environmentalists and activists say we welcome this project,” the CJI observed, adding, “Everything you drag to the court.” His other observations included: “In this country, this kind of litigation is filed only to stall all development projects. That is the problem”; “See, you people don’t want ports to be expanded. How is the country going to progress”; “You went to NGT and unfortunately that creates a lot of doubts on bona fide. You don’t go to any authority pointing out that I am an expert, I find that these are the deficiencies… if at all you are an expert. You are some RTI activist, you are so-and-so activist, an environmentalist, you have so many degrees… Jahan daav lage wahin (Wherever the opportunities are…)”.
In an open letter released on May 22, 71 members of the Constitution Conduct Group, a platform for former civil servants, pointed out that the CJI’s remarks may “weaken environmental and conservation safeguards in the country, and influence lower courts to also adopt similar attitudes”.
The letter underlined that “most of the expert and statutory bodies set up by the Environment Ministry…consist only of government or retired government officials” and urged the Supreme Court not to place “blind faith in these appraisal bodies which act as rubber stamps for the government”.
Story continues below this ad
The same day, another letter signed by over 600 citizens and civil society groups from across the country said the remarks “risk portraying citizens who seek lawful scrutiny of environmental decision-making as a suspect constituency”.
Last Tuesday, 72 members of the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability & Rights, a platform for legal professionals, wrote to the CJI: “Environmental PIL is a jurisdiction created and legitimised by the Court itself to scrutinise executive action. To frame recourse to it as a tactic of stalling undermines the spirit of Articles 32 and 226.” The environmental clearance for the proposed expansion of Pipavav Port, which was issued in June 2012, expired in June 2024. It was renewed in July 2025 without considering certain contradictions in the project’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report and the developer’s failure to initiate expansion work due to lack of financial viability, the appellant alleged before the NGT.
On November 26, 2025, the NGT dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.
Before the Supreme Court on May 11, the petitioner argued that the 45-page NGT order reproduced the project’s EIA report across 41 pages before dismissing his appeal “perfunctorily”, and sought a hearing on merits.
Story continues below this ad
The bench, however, pointed out that 14 experts of the “highest rank” had conducted the EIA process.
“See how many experts are involved. Do you think (the) NGT is better than these people,” the CJI asked, adding that the single expert member on an NGT bench “cannot do anything” about EIAs prepared by so many experts.
However, the appellant’s petition underlined that, as an expert adjudicatory body vested with appellate jurisdiction, the NGT was duty-bound to undertake a merits review, in line with the principle set in 2019 by the SC in Hanuman Laxman Aroskar vs Union of India. “In the present case, the Tribunal has merely relied on the process conducted by EAC and its recommendations, abdicating its own jurisdiction to conduct a merits review.” The petition further said a summary dismissal of an appeal goes against the Delhi High Court ruling in Bright Enterprises versus MJ Bizcraft LLP (2017). “A court may feel that the case of a plaintiff is weak but that is no ground whatsoever for throwing out the suit lock, stock and barrel without giving the plaintiff an opportunity of proving and establishing its case.”
