Outlook Explainer: Green Court Clearance And The Future Of Great Nicobar

On Great Nicobar Island, life has gone on much the same for centuries. Forests alive with wildlife. Turtles nesting on quiet beaches. The Shompen people following their traditional ways, away from the outside world. Now, with ports, airports, and power plants on the horizon, what will the island look like in the years to come?

The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has given the green light to the Rs 80,000 crore Great Nicobar Island Development Project, choosing not to challenge its environmental clearance. The Tribunal highlighted the project’s strategic significance, and pointed to built-in safeguards. It dismissed petitions that sought to stall the initiative.

This ruling clears a major regulatory hurdle, but the controversy is far from over. Political opposition remains vocal, environmental groups continue to raise alarms, and legal battles are expected to play out in the higher courts, keeping the fate of Great Nicobar under close scrutiny.

Speaking to Outlook, Debi Goenka, executive trustee of the Conservation Action Trust, which challenged the project before the tribunal, described the NGT’s decision as “shocking and unfortunate”.

He argued that the project would cause irreversible damage to Great Nicobar’s pristine forests and affect what he described as one of Asia’s largest nesting habitats for leatherback turtles. Goenka also questioned the tribunal’s reliance on the project’s “strategic importance”, saying environmental courts are meant to protect ecosystems, not weigh defence considerations. He pointed out that a defence establishment already exists on the island and an airport is now planned as part of the expansion.

Goenka further criticised the High-Powered Committee process, noting that its report was submitted in a sealed cover and not made available to the petitioners’ lawyers. “The decision is unfortunate. Our appeal against an earlier NGT ruling is pending before the Calcutta High Court. We are hopeful that it will be taken up expeditiously,” he said.

Inside The Great Nicobar Project

The project was conceptualised by the NITI Aayog and approved by the Union Cabinet of India in 2021. It seeks to transform Great Nicobar, the southernmost island of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, into a strategic logistics hub in the Indo-Pacific.

It includes an International Container Transshipment Port at Galathea Bay, a greenfield international airport with civil and military functions, a 450-MVA gas and solar-based power plant, and an integrated township. The port will be overseen by the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways.

Spread across roughly 166 square kilometres, the project entails diversion of nearly 130 square kilometres of forest land and cutting close to one million trees. The government argues that the port will reduce India’s dependence on foreign transshipment hubs such as Colombo and Singapore, and enhance India’s maritime position near the Malacca Strait.

Fragile Ecosystem And Indigenous Communities

Great Nicobar is one of India’s most biodiverse and ecologically sensitive regions, with over 85 per cent of the island blanketed by tropical rainforest. Galathea Bay has long served as a nesting ground for endangered leatherback sea turtles, and the island is home to unique species like the Nicobar megapode and Nicobar macaque.

The island is also highly vulnerable to seismic activity, lying along the same megathrust fault line that triggered the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, which reshaped its coastline. Critics warn that large-scale construction in this fragile, disaster-prone ecosystem could cause long-term environmental damage that mitigation measures may not fully prevent.

Great Nicobar is inhabited by the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, and the Nicobarese community. Opponents of the project argue that it risks disrupting ancestral lands and delicate socio-cultural systems, particularly in areas still recovering from the 2004 tsunami. 

The government, however, maintains that all statutory processes, including tribal safeguards, have been followed and that clearances were granted after expert appraisal. Despite this, questions remain about whether the cumulative social and ecological impacts have been fully addressed.

Concerns over the project’s impact on Indigenous communities have also drawn international attention. Earlier, in an open letter to President Droupadi Mumru,  39 scholars from 13 countries warned that proceeding with the development could amount to “a death sentence” for the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group that depends on the island’s rainforest for survival. The signatories cautioned that large-scale construction could expose the semi-isolated community to disease and irreversible cultural disruption, raising what they described as the risk of “genocidal” consequences.

The Shompen tribe lives in the island’s interior forests with limited contact with the outside world. Displacement, habitat fragmentation, or increased outsider presence could permanently disrupt their traditional hunting-gathering way of life, said Goenka.

Around seventy Indian scholars, former bureaucrats and environmentalists had also written an open letter responding to Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav’s defence of the proposed infrastructure project, urging reconsideration of what they described as the project’s “grave and irreversible negative implications.”

Legal Challenges Before The NGT

Environmental activist Ashish Kothari and others challenged the 2022 environmental clearance before the NGT. They argued that portions of the project fell within prohibited zones under the Island Coastal Regulation Zone (ICRZ) Notification, 2019. They also questioned the adequacy of baseline environmental data and raised concerns about coral reef damage, shoreline erosion, and harm to wildlife habitats.

Another key issue was whether the project had complied with earlier directions issued by the Tribunal in 2023 to revisit specific aspects of the environmental appraisal process.

Following its 2023 order, the NGT had constituted a High-Powered Committee (HPC) headed by former Environment Secretary Leena Nandan to review outstanding concerns. The committee’s findings formed the basis of the Tribunal’s final decision.

However, the Environment Ministry did not make the full HPC report public, citing confidentiality and strategic considerations. The NGT relied on the committee’s conclusions as submitted through an affidavit by the Centre. Critics argue that the lack of full disclosure raises questions about transparency in environmental governance.

NGT Verdict On The Project

In its final order, the Tribunal stated that it found no “good ground” to interfere with the environmental clearance. It accepted the HPC’s conclusion that no part of the project fell within prohibited ICRZ areas. It also recorded the Centre’s submission that certain port components potentially falling within specific coastal regulation categories would be excluded from the revised master plan.

The NGT emphasised that the environmental clearance contains binding safeguards for wildlife and coastal protection. It noted specific conditions for protecting leatherback sea turtles, the Nicobar megapode, saltwater crocodiles, robber crabs, and other endemic species.

On coral reefs, the Tribunal relied on submissions from the Zoological Survey of India, concluding that no major coral reef exists within the immediate project area. It nevertheless directed the Environment Ministry to ensure coral protection and regeneration through proven scientific methods.

The Tribunal also directed that construction activities, including foreshore development, must not lead to shoreline erosion or loss of sandy beaches, which serve as nesting sites and natural coastal buffers.

Importantly, the NGT explicitly acknowledged the project’s “strategic importance,” framing the issue as one requiring a balanced approach between environmental safeguards and national security considerations.

'Planned Misadventure'

Congress described the ruling as deeply disappointing. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said the decision overlooked evidence of irreversible ecological harm and argued that clearance conditions cannot mitigate structural environmental consequences. He noted that the matter continues to be examined by the Calcutta High Court. Earlier, Sonia Gandhi had called the project a “planned misadventure.”

Defending the initiative, Union Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav has maintained that all approvals were granted after due process and expert review, and has described the project as strategically vital for India’s maritime ambitions.

With the NGT declining to intervene, the immediate regulatory pathway for the project is clearer. However, litigation before the Calcutta High Court ensures that judicial scrutiny will continue. Questions around transparency, cumulative environmental impact, tribal rights, and long-term disaster resilience are likely to shape the next phase of the legal battle. The project now stands as a defining case in India’s environmental jurisprudence, testing how the country balances development, ecological limits, indigenous rights, and strategic imperatives in one of its most fragile frontier regions.