NGO asks Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to withdraw remarks against environmentalists

A Karnataka-based environmental organisation Parisarakkagi Naavu (People For Environment) has written to the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the Supreme Court to reconsider and withdraw its recent observations on environmentalists.

During the hearing of a case on the Pipavav port in Gujarat 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.” 

In a letter to the Chief Justice, members of Parisarakkagi Naavu said that they are responding to the recent observation by the bench suggesting that environmentalists merely seek to stall development in the name of the environment.

“Environmentalists are not against development. They are against irresponsible, unlawful, and environmentally destructive development. Environmentalists generally intervene only when there are concerns regarding the environmental consequences of a project — such as inadequate environmental assessments, unnecessary destruction of trees or water bodies, non-compliance with environmental safeguards, or the long-term impact on ecological and health of future generations,” states the letter signed by A.T. Ramaswamy, Kavitha A.S. Eledahally, Anjaneya Reddy Niravari, Parashuramegowda, Parvathi Sriram, Sikandar C.H., Mahesh Basapur and R.N. Venugopal

It added that when projects proceed responsibly and in accordance with the law, there is naturally little reason for public objection or protest.

Citing Constitution

They pointed out that the Constitution of India recognises the importance of environmental protection. Article 51A(g) places a fundamental duty upon every citizen “to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife,” Parisarakkagi Naavu stated. “Citizens and environmental groups who question projects that may cause unnecessary ecological damage are therefore not obstructing the nation — they are fulfilling a constitutional obligation.”

They gave various examples of projects which were opposed by environmental groups in Karnataka over the years, and that these projects later proved to have serious ecological, legal, and public-health implications.

The proposed ropeway project to Chamundi Hills in Mysuru, KRS theme park, coal-based thermal power plant at Chamalapura near Mysuru, Sharavathi Pumped Storage Project in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats region, and diversion of land from the century-old KSIC Silk Filature Factory at T. Narasipura for construction of a stadium, are some of the projects they cited in the letter.

Not opposing goals

The signatories said that development and environmental protection are not opposing goals.

“In fact, environmental protection is essential for meaningful and lasting development. A society cannot call itself developed if its rivers are poisoned, its air is unbreathable, its lakes are dead, and its cities are unlivable,” they said.

They further added that they request environmentalists and citizen groups acting in good faith not be painted with a broad brush as anti-development forces. “Many of them are ordinary citizens serving society selflessly, often without recognition, resources, or institutional support, driven only by concern for the ecological future of our country,” they said.

Urging the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court to reconsider and withdraw its recent observations, they said such remarks risk creating an inaccurate public perception about citizens and organisations who are merely discharging their constitutional duty towards environmental protection.