Organisations and environmentalists demand withdrawal of CJI’s remarks on activists

49 organisations, collectives and 553 environmentalists, academics and citizens wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant on Friday, May 22, 2026, requesting that the Supreme Court withdraw the oral statements made by the CJI on May 11.

The letter asked for the statements to be withdrawn so as not to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the “bona fide” environmental Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or the Constitutional role of affected communities and citizens in seeking to enforce environmental law.

During the hearing of a case on May 11, the CJI made a verbal observation: “You show us one project in this country and these so-called environmentalists and activists say, ‘We welcome this project.’ ‘The country is progressing well, we welcome this project.’ Everything you drag to court.

Referring to these and other comments made by the CJI during the hearing, the letter said, “We find the above-mentioned comments highly objectionable and disturbing. These comments were made not in the context of the case heard by the Court but in relation to the rights of citizens to protect the environment in general and to question illegal decisions and irregularities.”

“It must be made clear, with the utmost respect, that such framing is factually inaccurate, constitutionally problematic, and potentially dangerous. It risks portraying citizens who seek legal scrutiny of environmental decision-making as a suspect constituency rather than as right- and duty-fulfilling participants in constitutional democracy,” he said.

The CJI’s words risk having a “chilling effect” far beyond this single case, as the National Green Tribunal, High Courts, evaluation bodies and administrators take their cues from the Supreme Court, the letter said.

“We request that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all other courts in India treat local communities and citizens who approach the judiciary in public interest cases as entitled participants in the environmental decision-making process and not as obstacles to the environmental decision-making process,” the letter said.

The letter stated that a responsible democracy does not ask citizens to choose between development and the environment. “It asks whether development has been legally planned, honestly considered, and intelligently designed to holistically protect and benefit all life, livelihoods, and ecological security. When it does not, it provides legal remedies to citizens. The Supreme Court of India exists in part to ensure that these remedies are available and effective,” he said.