The Supreme Court on Monday expressed strong disapproval of the growing practice of filing legal petitions aimed at stalling major developmental projects across the country. Questioning the impact of such litigation on national growth, the Court asked how India is expected to progress if every project faces systematic legal opposition from activists.
The observations were made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while hearing an appeal against an order from the National Green Tribunal (NGT), Western Zone. The underlying case involved a challenge to the expansion and modernization of the Pipava Port in Gujarat, which had already received environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances.
During the proceedings, the bench took a critical view of the approach adopted by certain environmental activists.
“In this country, the kind of petitions being filed are only to stall development. That is the problem. How the country is going to progress,” the top court observed. The bench further challenged the petitioner to identify “even a single project in this country where these so-called environmental activists have said that we welcome this project.”
The Court emphasized that while it remains deeply concerned with environmental protection and is critical of any activities that harm the ecosystem, there must be a balance between conservation and necessity.
The bench noted that while it is natural for citizens to have genuine apprehensions regarding the environmental impact of a proposed project, the default response should not be to demand a complete halt.
The Court stated it would appreciate it if environmentalists approached the judiciary with “effective suggestions” aimed at ensuring sustainable development rather than seeking to quash projects entirely. The bench remarked that development is a necessity and that legal attempts should never be geared toward simply creating a deadlock.
The NGT had previously dismissed an appeal that sought to quash the clearances granted for the Pipava Port’s modernization. Upon reviewing the matter, the Supreme Court noted that the NGT had already passed a “very detailed order.”
However, to ensure all procedural safeguards were met, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner the liberty to move a review application before the NGT. This review is specifically intended to determine whether the issues raised by the petitioner were adequately considered within the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report. The NGT has been directed to examine this specific aspect.
