An open letter issued on May 22, 2026, by the Constitutional Conduct Group (CCG), comprising 71 retired civil servants from the All India and Central Services, has strongly criticized recent remarks made by the Chief Justice of India (CJI) against environmental litigants.
The letter was prompted by comments during the Supreme Court’s hearing of an appeal against the National Green Tribunal’s order upholding clearances for the Pipavav Port expansion project in Gujarat. The CJI had remarked, “Show us one project in India where environmental activists say we welcome this project, the country is progressing well, we welcome this project,” a statement the signatories described as disparaging and prejudiced.
The CCG expressed concern that such remarks, even if oral, could influence judicial attitudes across the country, weaken environmental safeguards, and silence citizens questioning ecological damage. They warned that this could foster fear and discourage dissent, undermining democratic accountability.
The letter recalled landmark environmental movements such as the Silent Valley agitation, Chipko, Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Appiko, which shaped India’s conservation ethos and led to significant legislative and judicial interventions.
It also highlighted the Supreme Court’s own history of judicial activism in cases like MC Mehta (1987), the Ganga Pollution Case (1988), and the Taj Trapezium Case (1996), which established principles such as “polluter pays,” “precautionary principle,” and “inter-generational equity.”
The signatories criticized the judiciary’s reliance on government appraisal bodies, noting their near-total clearance rates for projects and describing them as “rubber stamps.” They cited examples including the Aravalli hills case and the Sariska Tiger Reserve boundary rationalization, where government committees were found to be flawed or biased.
According to the letter, between 2014 and 2024, the Forest Advisory Committee diverted over 1.73 lakh hectares of forest land, while the National Board of Wildlife cleared 97% of diversion proposals, reflecting a collapse of environmental governance.
The CCG urged the Supreme Court not to place blind faith in these appraisal bodies and to recognize the vital role of citizens who litigate against environmentally harmful projects, often at great personal cost. They emphasized that only a fraction of clearances are ever challenged in court, and those who do so act in the larger public interest.
The letter concluded by appealing to the CJI to encourage, rather than disparage, citizen voices defending ecological integrity, stressing that environmental protection is fundamental to India’s economic security and growth.
Comments