A Karnataka-based environmental organisation, Parisarakkagi Naavu, has written to the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and the Supreme Court, requesting the withdrawal of recent remarks made against environmentalists during a court hearing.
The appeal follows an oral observation made by the Chief Justice on May 11 during proceedings related to the Pipavav port case in Gujarat. In his remarks, the CJI questioned whether environmental activists had ever supported development projects, suggesting that such groups often approach courts to challenge infrastructure proposals.
The organisation, whose name translates to “People For Environment,” said the comments risk creating a misleading perception that environmental groups are uniformly opposed to development. It argued that citizens and activists engage with legal processes only when there are concerns about environmental damage, inadequate impact assessments, or violations of environmental safeguards.
In its letter, Parisarakkagi Naavu emphasised that environmental protection is a constitutional responsibility under Article 51A(g) of the Constitution of India, which calls upon citizens to safeguard and improve the natural environment, including forests, rivers, lakes, and wildlife. The group stated that environmental activism should be viewed as a fulfilment of civic duty rather than an obstacle to national development.
The organisation also stressed that environmentalists are not opposed to development itself, but to projects that may cause irreversible ecological harm. It added that responsible and law-compliant development typically does not face public opposition.
The letter cited several past infrastructure proposals in Karnataka that were opposed by environmental groups, including projects in ecologically sensitive regions such as the Western Ghats. According to the group, many of these projects later raised concerns related to environmental impact, legal compliance, and long-term public health outcomes.
The activists further argued that development and environmental protection are not conflicting goals but interdependent priorities. They stated that long-term progress cannot be sustained if natural ecosystems are degraded or resources are mismanaged.
Urging the judiciary to reconsider the remarks, the organisation warned that broad characterisations of environmental activists could discourage legitimate civic participation in environmental governance and weaken public trust in institutional dialogue.
The matter highlights the continuing debate in India over balancing infrastructure growth with environmental sustainability, particularly in regions facing increasing ecological pressure.
