Bengaluru: More than 600 citizens and civil society groups wrote to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant on Friday, May 22, taking exception to his remarks on May 11 criticising environmentalists for filing petitions in courts and for suggesting that they are stalling development. ‘Environmentalist’ is not a term to delegitimise efforts to protect India’s natural wealth for its citizens and the Supreme Court should withdraw the oral remarks made by Kant, it said.On the same day, the Constitutional Conduct Group (a collective of former government officials) also wrote to the CJI expressing its “deep concern” at his “disparaging remarks”.What the CJI saidHere are the CJI’s comments that caused these sharp responses:“Show us even a single project in this country where these alleged environmental activists have said that we welcome this project. Country is progressing well, we welcome this project. Everything you drag to the court,” a bench comprising CJI Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi said on May 11. It was hearing a petition challenging the expansion of Pipavav Port in Gujarat, which the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had cleared. The Wire has learnt that the petitioner is a member of the local community living near Pipavav Port.“In this country, the kind of litigations that are filed only to stall all development projects, that is the whole problem,” the bench allegedly said.The bench is also reported to have added: “You also state you went to NGT and unfortunately that creates lot of doubts on bona fides. You don’t go to any expert agency, you don’t go to any authority pointing out that look here, this is your report submitted. I am an expert, I find that these are the deficiencies in your report, if at all you are expert. You are some RTI activist, you are so-and-so activist, an environmentalist, you have so many degrees. I’m RTI activist, I’m environmentalist, I’m social activist, I’m so-and-so activist. Jahan daav lage wahin?”‘Highly objectionable’, ‘disturbing’The above remarks are “highly objectionable and disturbing”, the letter addressed to the Chief Justice on May 22 said.This letter has been endorsed by 533 citizens including farmers, lawyers, social and environmental activists, academics, scientists, wildlife biologists, conservationists, educators, engineers, architects and students. Nearly 50 organisations and collectives are also signatory to the letter. These include the Himdhara Environment Research and Action Collective and the Joshimath Bachao Sangharsh Samiti in Uttarakhand, the pan-India National Alliance for Climate and Ecological Justice and Vanashakti, a Mumbai-based NGO that has filed numerous petitions in courts for environment protection.Cracks on a house in Joshimath, Uttarakhand, January 2023. Cracks developed as a result of massive construction, including for a hydel project being built despite warnings against heavy construction in the fragile ecosystem. Photo: Twitter/@LicypriyaKThe CJI’s remarks were on the larger right of citizens to protect the environment and question illegal decisions and irregularities, and risk environmental scrutiny and public-interest litigation as being understood as “anti-development”, the letter said.“With utmost respect, it must be stated plainly: such framing is factually inaccurate, constitutionally troubling and potentially dangerous,” it said. “It risks portraying citizens who seek lawful scrutiny of environmental decision-making as a suspect constituency, rather than as participants in a constitutional democracy performing both a right and a duty.”Even though the CJI’s remarks were only oral observations and not part of the judgment, they seem to “trivialise or delegitimise environmental objections”, it said. And such statements by India’s apex court “may discourage future petitioners, embolden appraisal authorities to treat public concern as an inconvenience and signal to the NGT that environmental scrutiny is disfavoured”, it said.‘Environmentalist is not a term to delegitimise’The CJI’s suggestion that environmental litigation paralyses development is directly contradicted by available evidence, the letter claimed, citing a report by Indian Express that found that in more than one lakh NGT orders between 2020 and 2025, the tribunal upheld the developer’s position in approximately four out of every five appeals that challenged environmental and forest clearances.India is currently witnessing a suite of environmental and ecological issues, from severe heatwaves and poor air quality to forest loss; and all its biogeographic regions are threatened too, the letter added. The Indian Constitution gives citizens the right (and duty) to protect their natural environment. So citizens and affected communities who approach courts for these are “not subverting these institutions, but are merely using them for their intended purpose”.Also read: Joshimath Land Subsidence Victims Take Out Torchlight Procession After Govt Fails to Address Issues“They are trying to hold the State to the standards it has set for itself and no more. To characterise this as a ‘problem’ is to perhaps characterise constitutional democracy itself as a problem,” the letter read.The letter also strongly objected to the “casual deployment of the label ‘environmentalist’ as a term of delegitimisation”.“‘Environmentalist’ has a positive connotation: as citizens who are fulfilling their duty under Article 51 (A)(g). In fact, the constitution envisages every citizen (including judges) to be a ‘guardian of the environment’ … In many instances, litigation is the ‘last resort’ precisely because environmental planning is not yet integrated into the core of project design in India,” it noted.“We take strong objection to the casual deployment of the label ‘environmentalist’ as a term of delegitimisation,” said Prafulla Samantara, a senior environmentalist from Odisha and National Convenor, Lok Shakti Abhiyan.“We citizens who discharge our constitutional duty by raising concerns about inadequately appraised development projects are not obstructing the state, but are performing an obligation that the constitution places upon us,” he said in a statement. Samantara is also one of the signatories of the letter.Withdraw CJI’s remarks, say greensThe letter demanded immediate structural reforms, including applying the mitigation hierarchy wherein avoidance comes first, followed by minimisation, restoration and opting for compensation or offsetting only as a last resort.“The need of the hour is not less environmental scrutiny, but better planning, better appraisal, better science-policy integration, better compliance, greater transparency and a judicial climate that reassures citizens that lawful environmental concern remains integral to Indian democracy and to the Fundamental Right to Life itself,” it noted.Also read: ‘Cancel Aravalli Zoo Safari Project’: Rights Group Write to Environment Min And Haryana CMAmong the demands the letter has put forward is that the Supreme Court withdraw the oral remarks made by the CJI and that the court “stand firm in the decades of legacy of environmental jurisprudence it has itself built and to signal clearly that in the world’s largest democracy, the rule of environmental law is a pillar of – and not barrier to – development that is constitutionally and legally sound, widely inclusive and ecologically sustainable.”‘Environmental movements have shaped India’The CCG, a collective of former government officials, also came down heavily on the CJI’s remarks of May 11.“The CJI’s remarks against environmental activists and litigants, suggesting that these activists obstruct ‘development’, reveal a bias and prejudice that is alarming, coming from the highest judicial authority of the country, an authority whose mandate is to approach every issue without pre-conceived notions and decide each case on merits,” said their statement, which called out the CJI’s remarks as “disparaging”.A bridge near the Silent Valley dam site, Kerala, proposed in the seventies. The hydroelectric project was cancelled following major environmental protests. Credit: C.J. Samson, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.The CCG’s letter noted that India’s “environmental integrity” has been “shaped and strengthened by important environmental movements”. They listed several examples. One was that of the Silent Valley agitation in Kerala where scientists, environmentalists, poets and local people protested against a dam that was proposed on the Kunthipuzha river by the Kerala State Electricity Board.“This movement caused India to be recognised, internationally, as an environmentally conscious country,” the CCG said. “The Chipko movement in Uttarakhand which led to the enactment of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Narmada Bachao Andolan in Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat against the Sardar Sarovar Dam, the Appiko movement in Karnataka against commercial logging were all socially driven by concerned citizens who refused to accept the proposed “development” interventions that would despoil forests and ecosystems intricately woven with local livelihoods, culture, sustenance and identity. They were, while upholding the principles of the right to life and environmental protection, fulfilling the mandate of conservation placed on them by the Constitution.”“We hope the Hon’ble CJI will encourage rather than discourage citizens from raising their voice for the ecological integrity of our country and recognise that this is fundamental to our country’s economic security and growth,” the CCG letter urged.Alaknanda Valley, Chamoli, Uttarakhand. Credit: Gul-Wiki, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons. Inset: Plaque remembering Ghanshyam Sailani, thinker and poet of the Chipko movement, Kuflon, Uttarkashi. Credit: Kainthola Sunil, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.The signatories of this letter include Harsh Mander (former IAS officer with the government of Madhya Pradesh), K.P. Fabian (former ambassador to Italy) and Meena Gupta (former Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests) who is also a petitioner for two cases filed in the Calcutta High Court about the Great Nicobar projects being implemented by the union government in violation of the Forest Rights Act and by ignoring the dissent expressed by indigenous communities on the island.Sustainable development is an imperativeIt is important to realise the tremendous pressures that our forests, rivers, coasts and terrestrial, riverine and marine wildlife are witnessing from unplanned and sub-optimally regulated developmental projects, said Rohit Jha, an ecologist with a decade of field experience in different Indian ecosystems.“Proponents think of complying with environment-related laws and rules as an unnecessary burden. This is besides the fact that there is a trend of these regulations themselves having been relaxed gradually to favour proponents at the cost of expediting clearances,” he told The Wire. Environment Impact Assessment reports also frequently under-report or misrepresent facts on ground with respect to wildlife presence; the voices and opinions of local communities too are frequently brushed aside, he added.“In such a scenario, many a times, public-spirited citizens and people who care for the country’s ecological wealth are left with only the judiciary for a fair adjudication and a forum where legitimate environmental concerns will be addressed. To then hear the CJI speak disparagingly of the litigants and to paint activists in a particular light is, to put it mildly, dangerous and unprecedented,” Jha said.India needs urgent “structural reforms in the environment planning and appraisal architecture“ to serve both proponent and environmental interests. “Our country’s long-term economic well-being is predicated on the foundation of ecological security. Sustainable and equitable development is not a choice, rather it is an ecological and economic imperative,” he said.