Various organisations, former civil servants oppose CJI’s environmental activists comment

A Supreme Court bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, while hearing a case concerning the expansion of Pipavav Port in Gujarat on May 11,...

What Happened

A Supreme Court bench led by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, while hearing a case concerning the expansion of Pipavav Port in Gujarat on May 11, 2026, remarked: "Show us even a single project in this country where these alleged environmental activists have said that we welcome this project."
A group of 72 lawyers, law teachers, researchers, and activists wrote an open letter to the CJI demanding a retraction, calling the remarks "factually inaccurate, constitutionally troubling, and potentially dangerous."
Various civil society organisations and a group of former civil servants separately expressed concern, characterising the comments as revealing "bias and prejudice" in the court's approach to environmental litigation — suggesting preconceived conclusions rather than merit-based adjudication.
The opposition groups urged the CJI to reaffirm that environmental PILs and National Green Tribunal (NGT) appeals are constitutional and statutory enforcement actions, not obstructions to development.
The controversy has reopened a broad debate on the judicial treatment of environmental public interest litigation, the role of citizens in environmental governance, and the balance between development and ecological protection.

Static Topic Bridges

Constitutional Framework for Environmental Protection — Articles 48A and 51A(g)

The Constitution of India was amended by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976 to explicitly incorporate environmental protection into the fundamental framework of governance and citizenship. Article 48A was inserted into Part IV (Directive Principles of State Policy): "The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country." Article 51A(g) was inserted into Part IVA (Fundamental Duties): it is the duty of every citizen of India "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures." These provisions give constitutional status to environmental protection as both a state obligation and a citizen duty.

Article 48A: DPSP — directive to the State; not justiciable as a standalone right, but used to read Article 21 expansively.
Article 51A(g): Fundamental Duty — inserted by 42nd Amendment, 1976; strengthened by 44th Amendment guidelines.
42nd Amendment, 1976: Added both Article 48A and Article 51A to the Constitution.
Fundamental Duties: Part IVA, Articles 51A(a) to (k); not enforceable as independent rights but used by courts to interpret other provisions.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (various): The Supreme Court has invoked Article 48A and 51A(g) repeatedly to justify judicial intervention in environmental matters.

Connection to this news: The critics of the CJI's remarks specifically invoked Articles 48A and 51A(g) to argue that citizens and activists who approach courts over environmental violations are performing a constitutional duty — not obstructing development. Dismissing environmental litigation as anti-progress contradicts these constitutional provisions.

Right to Environment as Part of Article 21

The Supreme Court, through a series of landmark judgments, has read the right to a clean and healthy environment into Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty). This doctrinal development transformed environmental protection from a non-justiciable directive into a judicially enforceable fundamental right. In Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991), the Supreme Court held that the right to live includes the right to enjoy unpolluted air and water. In M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987), the Court expanded the "absolute liability" doctrine — holding that enterprises engaged in hazardous activities are absolutely liable for harm, with no exceptions.

Article 21: "No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law."
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978): Expanded Article 21 — procedure must be "just, fair, and reasonable."
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991): Right to a pollution-free environment held part of Article 21.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak, 1987): Absolute liability principle — no exceptions for hazardous enterprises.
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle declared part of Indian law.
T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (ongoing since 1995): Landmark forest protection case — SC's continuing jurisdiction over forests and ecologically sensitive areas.

Connection to this news: When environmental activists approach courts invoking the right to a clean environment, they are enforcing a judicially recognised component of Article 21. The CJI's remarks — implying such petitions are reflexively anti-development — risk undermining the constitutional doctrine the Supreme Court itself has built over four decades.

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) — Origin, Evolution, and Judicial Concern

Public Interest Litigation emerged in India in the late 1970s and early 1980s as a tool for social justice, allowing any public-spirited person to approach the Supreme Court (under Article 32) or the High Courts (under Article 226) on behalf of persons or communities unable to seek redress themselves. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer are credited as the architects of PIL jurisprudence in India. PIL has been extensively used in environmental cases — cases involving river pollution, forest encroachment, industrial hazards, and infrastructure projects with inadequate environmental clearances.

Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies — Dr. B.R. Ambedkar called it the "heart and soul" of the Constitution.
Article 226: High Courts' writ jurisdiction — broader than Article 32 (can issue writs not just for FR violations).
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Justice Bhagwati opened locus standi in PILs — any public-spirited person can file.
Epistolary jurisdiction: Letters to the Supreme Court treated as writ petitions — introduced to reach disadvantaged groups.
PIL misuse concern: Supreme Court itself has noted that PILs can be misused as personal interest litigation or as tools of obstruction; imposed costs for frivolous PILs.
Judicial concern about "green PILs" delaying infrastructure: A recurrent judicial commentary; the current controversy reflects this tension.

Connection to this news: The CJI's remark was made in the context of environmental PIL proceedings. While courts have legitimate concerns about frivolous PILs, the legal community's response underlines that a sweeping characterisation of environmental litigants as reflexively anti-development conflates legitimate constitutional enforcement with motivated obstruction.

National Green Tribunal (NGT) and Environmental Adjudication

The National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 established the NGT as a specialised judicial body for effective and expeditious disposal of cases relating to environmental protection, conservation of forests, and enforcement of environmental laws. It exercises original jurisdiction over cases involving "substantial question relating to environment" and appellate jurisdiction over orders of environmental regulatory authorities. The NGT operates on the principle of "sustainable development" and the precautionary principle.

NGT Act, 2010: Established NGT; came into force in 2010 under Article 21 and the Stockholm (1972) and Rio (1992) Declaration commitments.
NGT has original jurisdiction over cases involving a substantial question relating to environment (including enforcement of Environment Protection Act, 1986; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974; Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981).
NGT Bench: Principal Bench in New Delhi; Circuit Benches in Bhopal, Pune, Kolkata, Chennai.
NGT Chairperson: A retired Supreme Court judge.
NGT cannot examine constitutional validity of legislation (that domain belongs to High Courts/Supreme Court).
Environment (Protection) Act, 1986: Umbrella legislation under which most environmental clearances are issued.

Connection to this news: The letter to the CJI specifically called for the Supreme Court to reaffirm that NGT appeals are statutory enforcement actions, not presumptively motivated attempts to impede development. This reflects the concern that the CJI's comment could influence how lower courts and regulatory bodies treat environmental challengers.

Key Facts & Data

Article 48A and 51A(g): Both inserted by the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, 1976.
Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar (1991): First clear judicial holding that right to clean environment is part of Article 21.
Vellore Citizens' Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996): Precautionary Principle and Polluter Pays Principle recognised as part of Indian environmental law.
NGT established: 2010, under NGT Act, 2010.
CJI's remark occasion: Hearing on Pipavav Port expansion (Gujarat), May 11, 2026.
Opposition: 72 legal experts signed open letter; multiple civil society organisations; group of former civil servants.
S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981): Landmark PIL locus standi case.
Article 32: Right to Constitutional Remedies — enforceable fundamental right (cannot be suspended except during National Emergency under Article 359).
Indian environmental law's foundational principles: Precautionary Principle, Polluter Pays Principle, Public Trust Doctrine, Inter-Generational Equity — developed through Supreme Court PILs over the 1990s–2000s.