72 legal experts urge CJI to retract remarks on environmental activism
A group of 72 legal professionals has urged Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to retract Supreme Court observations on environmental activism, arguing they undermine ecological litigation. The letter defends PILs as constitutional tools for accountability in developmental decision-making
New Delhi: A group of 72 lawyers, law students, law faculty, law researchers, and activists trained in law have written an open letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, demanding a retraction of the Supreme Court’s recent observations on the practice of filing pleas to stall developmental projects.
A Bench comprising the CJI and Justice on May 11 had said, “Show us even a single project in this country where these alleged environmental activists have said that we welcome this project.” The letter, released on Tuesday, states that the observations cast unjust aspersions on concerned citizens, communities and collectives defending the ecology, within the framework of law, statutory institutions, and jurisprudence evolved by the apex court over decades. The signatories of the letter are members of the National Alliance for Justice, Accountability and Rights (NAJAR), a platform of law professionals.
“We are writing because the observations made extend beyond the outcome in one case. It relates to a broader jurisprudential shift: from viewing environmental litigation as an integral part of constitutional governance towards treating it as a suspect form of obstruction,” said the letter.
It added that the observations also pertain to a shift from recognising citizens as enforcers of statutory duties, towards dismissing them as “so-called environmental activists.” Also, from subjecting environmental decision-making to rule-of-law scrutiny towards deference to project clearances and administrative expertise, even where the record reveals inconsistencies, omissions and unresolved public concerns.
The letter asked the CJI to reaffirm a set of environmental jurisprudence and constitutional values.
These include, for example, environmental PILs and National Green Tribunal (NGT) appeals as constitutional and statutory enforcement actions, rather than as “presumptively motivated attempts to impede development.” To also reaffirm that NGT decisions are accorded appropriate weight while remaining subject to appellate review on substantial questions of law under Section 22 of the NGT Act, according to the letter.
