By Mukesh 
49 organisations, collectives and 553 environmentalists, academics, and citizens on Friday (May 22, 2026) wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, demanding that the Supreme Court withdraw oral remarks made by the CJI on May 11.
The letter sought the withdrawal of the remarks so that it does not cast doubt on the “legitimacy of bona fide” environmental Public Interest Litigation (PIL) or on the Constitutional role of affected communities and citizens in seeking enforcement of environmental law.
During the hearing of a case on May 11, the CJI made an oral observation: “You show us a single project in this country where these alleged environmentalists and activists say, ‘We welcome this project. “Country is progressing well, we welcome this project’. Everything you drag to the court.”
Citing this and other comments made by the CJI during the hearing, the letter said, “We find the aforementioned comments highly objectionable and disturbing. These comments were not made in the context of the case being heard by the Court, but on the overall right of citizens to protect the environment and question illegal decisions and irregularities.”
“With utmost respect, it must be stated plainly: such framing is factually inaccurate, constitutionally troubling, and potentially dangerous. 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,” it said.
The letter said that the CJI’s remarks also risk producing a “chilling effect” well beyond this single case, as the National Green Tribunal, High Courts, appraisal bodies, and administrators take their cues from the Supreme Court.
“We demand that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all other courts in India treat local communities and citizens approaching the judiciary in public interest litigation matters as rights-bearing participants in environmental decision-making rather than as obstacles to it,” the letter said.
The letter said that a responsible democracy does not ask citizens to choose between development and the environment. “It asks whether development has been planned lawfully, appraised honestly, and designed intelligently enough to holistically protect and benefit all life, livelihoods, and ecological security. When it has not been, it provides citizens with legal remedies. The Supreme Court of India exists, in part, to ensure those remedies are available and effective,” it said.