Your Lordships, environmental scrutiny is not anti-development

To:

The Honourable Chief Justice of India

Supreme Court of India, New Delhi

Subject: Respectful Representation Regarding Oral Observations in Pipavav Port Expansion Case 

We write this letter with deep respect for the Supreme Court of India and for the rule of law, and with profound concern regarding the recent remarks made during the hearing relating to the Pipavav Port expansion project in Gujarat, including the observations: “In this country, the kind of litigations that are filed only to stall all development projects, that is the whole problem.” “You see, you people don’t want ports to be expanding, but how is the country going to progress? We can’t understand this part.” “You show us a single project in this country where these alleged environmentalist activists say we welcome this project; the country is progressing well; we welcome this project. Everything, you drag to this Court.”

With respect, we object to the rhetorical framing of concerned and affected citizens as ‘environmentalists’, in a manner that implies a special‑interest group ideologically opposed to ‘development’. Those who approach this honourble court in the Pipavav matter are affected fishing communities, supported by researchers, lawyers, and public‑spirited individuals, seeking enforcement of environmental law and protection of fundamental rights.

Beyond the rhetorical labelling, the substantive remarks themselves frame environmental scrutiny via public interest litigation as invariably obstructionist to ‘development’, despite such scrutiny and litigation being constitutionally sanctioned, legally established, democratically legitimate, and scientifically necessary processes recognised by Parliament and the Supreme Court itself. 

It was, after all, the apex court that expanded and institutionalised public interest litigation by providing affected communities and public-spirited citizens an avenue to access justice. Equally, it is the Supreme Court that evolved much of India’s environmental jurisprudence, and many of India’s landmark environmental protections emerged through citizen-led PILs that governments and industries initially dismissed as ‘anti-development’. 

Further, Parliament itself enacted the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, which explicitly mandates the application of the principles of sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and the polluter pays principle — precisely because ‘development’ projects can and do cause serious environmental degradation, requiring specialised environmental adjudication and public accountability.

Citizens and affected communities are, therefore, not creating obstacles to ‘development’; they are only using constitutional and statutory mechanisms created by Parliament and strengthened by the jurisprudence evolved by the Supreme Court.

Most importantly, the issue is not one of ‘development’ versus ‘anti-development’. It is a question of what kind of development, whom that development favours, and whether such development proceeds in accordance with the law and is within the framework of the Constitution. In the Pipavav case, the conflict is between the expansion of port infrastructure and the economic livelihoods of fishing communities, whose livelihoods remain secure only when the coastal and marine environment itself remains secure. 

Moreover, these livelihood concerns are often articulated through PILs under environmental law because it remains one of the few legal frameworks through which affected and vulnerable communities are able to participate in, question, and seek accountability within large-scale ‘development’ processes from which they would otherwise remain excluded.

A vast majority of India’s 1.4 billion people live with severe economic constraints and shoulder substantial family responsibilities. Even those who may have some financial bandwidth lack access to the information and assistance needed to seek justice. Among the relatively few who are able to approach these fora, the prospects of securing relief are increasingly grim. A recent Indian Express investigation into over 100,000 NGT orders (2020–2025) found that, in environmental and forest clearance matters, the tribunal ruled in favour of project developers in four out of five appeals. Therefore, the implication that development projects are routinely stalled through environmental litigation is not supported by data. Nor is it supported by our lived realities.

A 2021 World Bank report warned of $2.7 trillion in annual losses by 2030 if ecological tipping points are crossed. The 2025 Global Tipping Points Report, synthesising the work of over 150 scientists, warns the world is nearing irreversible tipping points. The question is no longer whether ecological destabilisation will affect economies and societies but how rapidly and severely.

We now inhabit a profoundly altered ecological reality in which environmental protection can no longer be treated as an obstacle to economic growth but as the foundation upon which economic progress and social stability depend. So, if India needs to progress, there is no way but for infrastructure projects to undergo rigorous scrutiny so that the last few remaining natural habitats and resources are protected.

In light of this, we respectfully request that this honourable court reconsider oral remarks made in the Pipavav proceedings so that they are not understood as casting doubt on the legitimacy of bona fide environmental public interest litigation or on the role of affected communities and citizens in seeking enforcement of environmental laws. 

We further urge the Supreme Court to continue to uphold and deepen its rich environmental jurisprudence and to reaffirm that in the world’s largest democracy, adherence to environmental law and
the precautionary principle are essential parts of, and not an obstacle to, constitutionally sanctioned, legally established, environmentally sustainable, socially equitable, and democratically legitimate development. Article 51A(g) makes the protection and improvement of the natural environment a fundamental duty for every Indian citizen, and we should not forget or disregard it.

Nirmala is a Bengaluru-based activist-researcher who supports local communities to get judicial justice; Ravi is a Bengaluru-based wildlife biologist and conservation scientist.

(Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.)