Former Civil Servants Raise Concern Over Judicial Remarks on Environmental Litigants
On 22 May 2026, a group of 71 retired civil servants — constituting the Constitutional Conduct Group — addressed an open letter to the Chief Justice of India, expressing deep concern over remarks made from the Supreme Court bench regarding environmental litigants.
The remarks were made during a hearing on an appeal against a National Green Tribunal (NGT) order that had upheld environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone clearances for the expansion of Gujarat's Pipavav Port.
The bench's observation — questioning whether environmental activists have ever welcomed any infrastructure project — was characterised by the signatories as revealing "a bias and prejudice that is alarming, coming from the highest judicial authority of the country."
The former civil servants warned that such observations may influence judicial reasoning, embolden weaker environmental oversight, and deter citizens from challenging ecological damage in court.
Signatories included former IAS, IPS, IFS, and other retired officers, including former Delhi Lieutenant-Governor Najeeb Jung, former environment secretary Meena Gupta, former diplomat K P Fabian, and former IPS officer A S Dulat.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL): Constitutional Basis and Scope
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a distinctive feature of Indian constitutional jurisprudence — a mechanism by which any member of the public may approach the courts to seek remedy for a violation of rights or public duty even without a personal legal grievance. PIL emerged from the judicial activism of the late 1970s and early 1980s under Chief Justices P N Bhagwati and V R Krishna Iyer.
The 71 former civil servants' letter defends the legitimacy of PIL as a mechanism for environmental accountability. The CJI's remarks — questioning whether environmental activists ever support development — implicitly questioned the good faith of those who use PIL to challenge projects, raising fears about a chilling effect on access to justice in environmental matters.
National Green Tribunal (NGT): Structure and Jurisdiction
The National Green Tribunal (NGT) was established on 18 October 2010 under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — a Parliament-enacted law designed to provide specialised, expeditious adjudication of environmental disputes. India became one of only a few countries in the world to establish a dedicated environmental court with such broad jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against an NGT order in the Pipavav Port case, placing it in the role of appellate court over environmental disputes. The bench's remarks during this hearing — about the pattern of environmental activism — carry particular weight because they come in the context of reviewing the work of a specialised environmental tribunal.
Judicial Accountability and Separation of Powers
The Indian Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as the apex judicial body, with independence from the executive and legislature as a foundational principle. At the same time, the principle of judicial accountability — that judicial conduct, including remarks from the bench — is subject to public and professional scrutiny — is equally important in a constitutional democracy.
Key Details
- Independence of the judiciary is not explicitly listed as a Fundamental Right but is part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, as established in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973).
- Judges of the Supreme Court are appointed by the President on the recommendation of the Collegium (comprising the CJI and senior-most judges), and can only be removed by an address of both Houses of Parliament under Article 124(4) — a process that has never succeeded in Indian history.
- However, Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) and democratic accountability norms permit citizens — including former civil servants — to publicly comment on judicial conduct within the bounds of the law.
- Former civil servants, as members of the Constitutional Conduct Group, invoke their experience as custodians of constitutional law to argue that the CJI's remarks risk influencing the broader culture of environmental adjudication.
The letter by retired civil servants exemplifies the democratic mechanism of public discourse holding institutional behaviour to account. It does not amount to contempt; it is an exercise of constitutional rights — itself a form of civic participation that the PIL framework was designed to enable.
Environmental Governance and the Role of Civil Society
India's environmental governance framework involves multiple institutional actors: the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) (which issues Environmental Clearances and Forest Clearances), the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), State Pollution Control Boards (SPCBs), the National Biodiversity Authority, and the Coastal Regulation Zone notification framework — all subject to judicial oversight through NGT and High Courts.
Key Details
- Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Mandatory for listed industries and projects under the Environment Protection Act, 1986 read with the EIA Notification, 2006. Public hearings are a statutory component of the EIA process.
- Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification, 2019: Governs development activities in coastal areas; the Pipavav Port expansion (Gujarat) involved a CRZ clearance, making it subject to both MoEFCC and maritime regulatory scrutiny.
- Former bureaucrats — especially former environment secretaries and IFS officers — often have direct experience of how development projects navigate (or bypass) environmental clearance processes, lending institutional weight to their critique.
- Civil society organisations and citizens filing PILs or approaching NGT often fill a regulatory gap: enforcement agencies are under-resourced and the executive has inherent conflicts of interest in promoting both development and environmental compliance.
The CJI's remark targeted the perceived pattern of blanket opposition by environmental activists. The former civil servants' response argues that this pattern, to the extent it exists, reflects systemic failures in the EIA and clearance processes — not bad faith on the part of litigants — and that the courts should guard against being seen as aligned with developmental imperatives over environmental protection.
- Event: 71 retired civil servants (Constitutional Conduct Group) wrote to CJI Surya Kant on 22 May 2026
- CJI's remark context: Hearing on an appeal against an NGT order upholding environmental and CRZ clearances for Pipavav Port expansion, Gujarat
- CJI's remark (as reported): "Show us one project in India where environmental activists say we welcome this project, the country is progressing well, we welcome this project."
- NGT Act 2010: Established the National Green Tribunal; jurisdiction over substantial environmental questions; appealable to Supreme Court
- NGT established: 18 October 2010
- PIL constitutional basis: Article 32 (Supreme Court), Article 226 (High Courts)
- Right to pollution-free environment: Derived from Article 21 (right to life) — established through M C Mehta series of cases
- Key signatories: Former Delhi LG Najeeb Jung, former environment secretary Meena Gupta, former diplomat K P Fabian, former IPS officer A S Dulat, Harsh Mander
- Constitutional Conduct Group: A platform of former civil servants that engages on constitutional and governance issues
- Article 124(4): Mechanism for removal of Supreme Court judges — requires address of both Houses of Parliament; has never succeeded in Indian history
- Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973): Established judicial independence as part of the Basic Structure doctrine