Supreme Court Questions Repeated Attempts to Stall Development Projects, Calls for Balanced Environmental Approach

The Supreme Court has strongly criticised the growing trend of filing legal challenges that delay or obstruct major infrastructure and development projects in the country, observing that India cannot progress if every project is opposed in the name of environmental concerns.

A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the remarks while hearing a petition related to the expansion and modernisation of Pipavav Port in Gujarat.

The plea challenged an earlier order passed by the western zone bench of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which had dismissed objections against the environmental and Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) clearances granted to the port project.

During the hearing on May 11, the Supreme Court expressed frustration over what it described as a pattern of litigation aimed primarily at halting developmental works rather than ensuring balanced environmental safeguards.

“Show us even a single project in this country where these so-called environmental activists have said that we welcome this project,” the bench remarked sharply.

The court said that while environmental protection remains an important constitutional and public concern, there must also be recognition of the country’s developmental needs.

According to the bench, projects such as ports, roads and other infrastructure are essential for economic growth, employment and national progress.

“The problem in this country is that many litigations are filed only to stall development projects. You people do not want ports to expand. Then how will the country progress?” the bench observed.

At the same time, the judges clarified that the court has always remained sensitive to genuine environmental concerns and would never support activities that seriously damage ecology or biodiversity.

However, the bench stressed that environmental activism should focus on constructive solutions rather than blanket opposition.

Chief Justice Surya Kant said the court would appreciate activists approaching the judiciary with practical suggestions to ensure sustainable development while also protecting nature.

“We appreciate it if someone comes before the court and says these are the precautions that must be taken. Please proceed with the project, but ensure these safeguards are followed,” the Chief Justice observed.

The court indicated that attempts to completely stop projects at the very outset create doubts about the intent behind such litigation and negatively affect the country’s developmental momentum.

“First, the attempt is to stall everything. That itself sends a message about where the litigation is coming from, and that creates a problem,” the CJI added.

The matter before the court related to the expansion of Pipavav Port, a major maritime infrastructure project in Gujarat’s coastal region.

The National Green Tribunal had earlier passed a detailed order rejecting objections raised against the environmental clearances for the project.

Senior advocate Anitha Shenoy, appearing for the appellant, argued that the region in question is ecologically sensitive and extremely important for Gujarat’s fishing industry.

She said nearly 90 per cent of fish landings in the state take place in the Saurashtra region, making the environmental impact of the project a serious concern for local livelihoods and marine ecology.

Shenoy further argued that the project had remained economically unviable for nearly 13 years, yet authorities later granted permission for expansion.

She contended that the NGT, while hearing the matter, was expected to conduct a full merit-based review rather than a limited judicial review.

However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi questioned the relevance of economic viability in environmental assessment proceedings.

“That may not be a relevant consideration for environmental impact assessment. Economic viability and environmental impact are separate issues,” Justice Bagchi observed.

One of the major concerns raised during the hearing related to the possibility of the project affecting marine life, especially turtle nesting grounds and marine mammals in the coastal ecosystem.

Justice Bagchi referred to the inspection report placed before the court and noted that it clearly stated the project area was not identified as a turtle nesting ground.

The appellant’s counsel, however, argued that while the report claimed no turtle nesting sites were present directly within the project area, annexures attached to the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report painted a different picture.

She pointed to findings from a CSIR-NIO study which reportedly mentioned sightings of marine species including Olive Ridley turtles and humpback whales in nearby waters.

Responding to this argument, Justice Bagchi said occasional or transient sightings of marine animals could not automatically establish the existence of a nesting or breeding habitat.

“There may be transient movement even of a humpback whale. That does not mean humpback whales nest there. It could simply be a rare sighting,” the court remarked.

After hearing both sides, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to file a review petition before the National Green Tribunal, specifically to clarify whether the environmental concerns raised had been adequately considered in the Environmental Impact Assessment report.

The bench directed the NGT to examine the issue carefully.

Before concluding the hearing, the Supreme Court reiterated that citizens and activists certainly have the right to raise genuine environmental apprehensions whenever large-scale projects are proposed.

However, the judges underlined that opposition should not automatically translate into attempts to freeze every development initiative, especially in a rapidly growing country like India.

The court’s remarks come at a time when several large infrastructure projects across India are facing prolonged legal battles over environmental clearances, land use, and ecological concerns, reopening the larger debate over how the country can balance rapid economic development with environmental protection.