Ex-bureaucrats write to CJI over remarks on green litigants

On 22 May 2026, a group of 71 retired civil servants — constituting the Constitutional Conduct Group — addressed an open letter to the Chief Justice of India...

What Happened

On 22 May 2026, a group of 71 retired civil servants — constituting the Constitutional Conduct Group — addressed an open letter to the Chief Justice of India, expressing deep concern over remarks made from the Supreme Court bench regarding environmental litigants.
The remarks were made during a hearing on an appeal against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that had upheld environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone clearances for the expansion of Gujarat's Pipavav Port.
The bench's observation — questioning whether environmental activists have ever welcomed any infrastructure project — was characterised by the signatories as revealing "a bias and prejudice that is alarming, coming from the highest judicial authority of the country."
The former civil servants warned that such observations may influence judicial reasoning, embolden weaker environmental oversight, and deter citizens from challenging ecological damage in court.
Signatories included former IAS, IPS, IFS, and other retired officers, including former Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung, former environment secretary Meena Gupta, former diplomat K P Fabian, and former IPS officer A S Dulat.

Static Topic Bridges

Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Constitutional Basis and Scope

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a distinctive feature of Indian constitutional jurisprudence — a mechanism by which any member of the public may approach the courts to seek remedy for a violation of rights or public duty even without a personal legal grievance. PIL emerged from the judicial activism of the late 1970s and early 1980s under Chief Justices P N Bhagwati and V R Krishna Iyer.

Constitutional anchoring: PIL can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 (enforcement of fundamental rights) or in High Courts under Article 226 (writ jurisdiction). Article 32 is a fundamental right in itself — the right to constitutional remedies; Dr B R Ambedkar described it as the "heart and soul of the Constitution."
Unlike ordinary litigation, in PIL the court may act on a letter or postcard (epistolary jurisdiction), relax the standard of locus standi (standing), and appoint amicus curiae or commissioners to investigate.
Environmental PILs have been particularly significant since the late 1980s, with the Supreme Court expanding the right to life under Article 21 to include the right to a clean and pollution-free environment (Subhash Kumar v. State of Bihar, 1991; M C Mehta v. Union of India series).
PIL has enabled citizens to challenge environmental clearances, mining licences, deforestation orders, and industrial pollution — areas where the executive may be captured by sectoral interests.

Connection to this news: The 71 former civil servants' letter defends the legitimacy of PIL as a mechanism for environmental accountability. The CJI's remarks — questioning whether environmental activists ever support development — implicitly questioned the good faith of those who use PIL to challenge projects, raising fears about a chilling effect on access to justice in environmental matters.

National Green Tribunal (NGT): Structure and Jurisdiction

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established on 18 October 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — a Parliament-enacted law designed to provide specialised, expeditious adjudication of environmental disputes. India became one of only a few countries in the world to establish a dedicated environmental court with such broad jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction: All civil cases involving "a substantial question relating to environment" — including enforcement of any legal right relating to environment — and cases arising from the enforcement of laws listed in Schedule I of the NGT Act (Water Act 1974, Air Act 1981, Environment Protection Act 1986, Forest Conservation Act 1980, Biological Diversity Act 2002, etc.).
Composition: Chairperson (former Supreme Court judge or Chief Justice of a High Court) + judicial members + expert members (with expertise in environmental/resource management).
Powers: The NGT can award compensation, issue injunctions, set aside environmental clearances, and impose penalties. It has the power of a civil court for certain purposes.
Appeal: NGT orders are appealable to the Supreme Court.
Significance: NGT reduced the burden on High Courts and Supreme Court; its specialised bench allows technical environmental evidence to be properly assessed.
The Pipavav Port case involved a challenge to an environmental and CRZ clearance — within NGT's core jurisdiction — before the appeal reached the Supreme Court.

Connection to this news: The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against an NGT order in the Pipavav Port case, placing it in the role of appellate court over environmental disputes. The bench's remarks during this hearing — about the pattern of environmental activism — carry particular weight because they come in the context of reviewing the work of a specialised environmental tribunal.

Judicial Accountability and Separation of Powers

The Indian Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the apex judicial body, with independence from the executive and legislature as a foundational principle. At the same time, the principle of judicial accountability — that judicial conduct, including remarks from the bench — is subject to public and professional scrutiny — is equally important in a constitutional democracy.

Independence of the judiciary is not explicitly listed as a Fundamental Right but is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, as established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Collegium (comprising the CJI and senior-most judges), and can only be removed by an address of both Houses of Parliament under Article 124(4) — a process that has never succeeded in Indian history.
However, Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and democratic accountability norms permit citizens — including former civil servants — to publicly comment on judicial conduct within the bounds of the law.
Former civil servants, as members of the Constitutional Conduct Group, invoke their experience as custodians of constitutional law to argue that the CJI's remarks risk influencing the broader culture of environmental adjudication.

Connection to this news: The letter by retired civil servants exemplifies the democratic mechanism of public discourse holding institutional behaviour to account. It does not amount to contempt; it is an exercise of constitutional rights — itself a form of civic participation that the PIL framework was designed to enable.

Environmental Governance and the Role of Civil Society

India's environmental governance framework involves multiple institutional actors: the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) (which issues Environmental Clearances and Forest Clearances), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), the National Biodiversity Authority, and the Coastal Regulation Zone notification framework — all subject to judicial oversight through NGT and High Courts.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Mandatory for listed industries and projects under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with the EIA Notification, 2006. Public hearings are a statutory component of the EIA process.
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2019: Governs development activities in coastal areas; the Pipavav Port expansion (Gujarat) involved a CRZ clearance, making it subject to both MoEFCC and maritime regulatory scrutiny.
Former bureaucrats — especially former environment secretaries and IFS officers — often have direct experience of how development projects navigate (or bypass) environmental clearance processes, lending institutional weight to their critique.
Civil society organisations and citizens filing PILs or approaching NGT often fill a regulatory gap: enforcement agencies are under-resourced and the executive has inherent conflicts of interest in promoting both development and environmental compliance.

Connection to this news: The CJI's remark targeted the perceived pattern of blanket opposition by environmental activists. The former civil servants' response argues that this pattern, to the extent it exists, reflects systemic failures in the EIA and clearance processes — not bad faith on the part of litigants — and that the courts should guard against being seen as aligned with developmental imperatives over environmental protection.

Key Facts & Data

Event: 71 retired civil servants (Constitutional Conduct Group) wrote to CJI Surya Kant on 22 May 2026
CJI's remark context: Hearing on an appeal against an NGT order upholding environmental and CRZ clearances for Pipavav Port expansion, Gujarat
CJI's remark (as reported): "Show us one project in India where environmental activists say we welcome this project, the country is progressing well, we welcome this project."
NGT Act 2010: Established the National Green Tribunal; jurisdiction over substantial environmental questions; appealable to Supreme Court
NGT established: 18 October 2010
PIL constitutional basis: Article 32 (Supreme Court), Article 226 (High Courts)
Right to pollution-free environment: Derived from Article 21 (right to life) — established through M C Mehta series of cases
Key signatories: Former Delhi LG Najeeb Jung, former environment secretary Meena Gupta, former diplomat K P Fabian, former IPS officer A S Dulat, Harsh Mander
Constitutional Conduct Group: A platform of former civil servants that engages on constitutional and governance issues
Article 124(4): Mechanism for removal of Supreme Court judges — requires address of both Houses of Parliament; has never succeeded in Indian history
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established judicial independence as part of the Basic Structure doctrine