New Delhi: A group of 71 retired civil servants from the All India and Central Services has written an open letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, saying his recent remarks on environmental litigants risk creating “an atmosphere of fear” that could discourage citizens from challenging ecologically damaging projects.
The letter, issued under the banner of the Constitutional Conduct Group, concerns remarks made during the hearing of an appeal against a National Green Tribunal order of 26 November 2025, which upheld the environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone clearances granted to the Pipavav Port expansion project in Gujarat.
“Show us one project in India where environmental activists say we welcome this project, the country is progressing well, we welcome this project,” the CJI had said.
The retired officers said the remarks reflected “a bias and prejudice that is alarming, coming from the highest judicial authority of the country”. Although the oral observation was not part of a written order, it has been widely reported.
“Such statements can foster fear and silence citizens’ voices of dissent, discouraging them from questioning ecological damage, and the potential adverse impact on communities and public health… it could create tendencies fundamentally antithetical to democracy,” the letter stated.
The signatories include former Delhi Lieutenant Governor Najeeb Jung, former Union environment secretary Meena Gupta, former IAS officer and activist Harsh Mander, former foreign secretary K Raghunath, and former Punjab DGP Julio Ribeiro.
The group argued that citizen-led environmental resistance has historically strengthened conservation and democratic accountability in India, citing movements such as the Silent Valley agitation in Kerala, the Chipko movement in Uttarakhand, the Narmada Bachao Andolan, and Karnataka’s Appiko movement.
“The Supreme Court has, for decades, been the last hope of environmentally conscious citizens and affected communities,” the letter states, adding that the signatories are “dismayed by the disparaging remarks of the CJI aimed at citizens fighting for conservation.”
Govt-appointed bodies act as ‘rubber stamps’
The signatories also questioned the court’s reliance on government-appointed environmental appraisal bodies. According to the letter, the Supreme Court, during the Pipavav hearing, had expressed faith in “government instituted environmental appraisal authorities and expert bodies” and suggested that projects vetted by such bodies should not ordinarily be stalled.
The retired officers argued that India’s environmental governance framework is “seriously flawed”. They cited the recent Aravalli hills case, in which the Supreme Court first accepted, and later reconsidered, an expert committee’s definition of the Aravalli range. They also referred to the court’s criticism, in August 2025, of the Central Empowered Committee for supporting Rajasthan’s boundary rationalisation proposal at the Sariska Tiger Reserve.
The letter further alleged that statutory environmental bodies under the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change increasingly function as “rubber stamps” for government decisions.
Citing data, the signatories claimed that Environment Appraisal Committees clear between 95 and 100 per cent of projects across sectors; that the Forest Advisory Committee approved diversion of over 1.73 lakh hectares of forest land for infrastructure and industrial projects between 2014 and 2024; and that the Standing Committee of the National Board for Wildlife cleared 2,121 of 2,186 proposals considered between 2014 and 2026.
“The functioning of bodies instituted for good and responsible governance of the country’s environmental wealth clearly point to a collapse of judicious decision-making and environmental caution,” the letter states.
The group urged the CJI and the Supreme Court not to place “blind faith” in environmental appraisal bodies and instead recognise public interest environmental litigation as “an act of immense public and social service”.
“We hope the Hon’ble CJI will encourage rather than discourage citizens from raising their voice for the ecological integrity of our country,” the letter concludes.
(Edited by Prashant Dixit)