SC Refuses To Block Challenge To Great Nicobar Project, Seeks Early HC Hearing

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to block former IAS officer Meena Gupta’s challenge to statutory approvals for the ₹920-billion Great Nicobar Island project and asked the Calcutta High Court to hear the matter quickly. The court said the issue could not be closed only on maintainability and that the larger question of whether the public interest litigation survives must be examined by the high court, reported Hindustan Times.

The bench comprised Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana. It was hearing the Centre and the Andaman and Nicobar administration’s challenge to the May 6 order of the Calcutta High Court’s circuit bench at Port Blair, which had refused to throw out Gupta’s petition.

The Supreme Court did not enter the merits of the dispute at this stage. Instead, it asked the high court to complete pleadings and try to conclude the hearing at the earliest, while signalling that the case raises wider questions on tribal rights, forest law compliance and the scope of the project.

Tribal Rights Focus

The bench put tribal rights at the centre of the hearing. “They are unique tribes, and they need preservation,” the bench said while discussing the indigenous communities on the island. It noted that the Great Andamanese tribes had largely integrated with the mainstream.

It then asked, “The question is, Shompen tribes, if they want to preserve their uniqueness, should they be able to do so?” The observation came as senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for Gupta, told the court that tribal councils wanted to intervene because the Shompen and Nicobarese had complained they were not heard before approvals were granted.

The government disputed that claim. Attorney General R Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said the tribal communities had been heard.

The bench framed the issue in constitutional terms. “Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. When you talk about an eco park, it is about ecology. Tribal culture must receive constitutional protection,” the bench said.

It also drew a line between strategic concerns and commercial use. “There has to be filtration between security of the State and commercial exploitation,” it said. Venkataramani had argued that the matter before the court concerned a project of “utmost importance to the nation”.

The Supreme Court then chose to send the matter back for fuller scrutiny. “We will request the chief justice of the high court to decide this expeditiously,” the bench said. Muralidhar pointed out that the case was already listed for November 25 and 26, and the court recorded that both sides agreed it should be decided early.

High Court Challenge

The dispute began with the Centre’s objection to Gupta’s standing. In its May 6 order, the Calcutta High Court rejected the argument that she lacked locus standi because no forest-dwelling tribal person had authorised her to file the PIL.

The high court relied on Gupta’s background. It noted that she had served as secretary in the tribal affairs and environment ministries, had been involved in framing the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and had a previous association with the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

That background mattered to the court’s reasoning. It held that the PIL could not be dismissed only because Gupta was not a resident of the islands, especially when the case involved vulnerable communities that may not have the means to approach the court on their own.

The high court also separated this case from litigation before the National Green Tribunal. It said Gupta’s petition was different from proceedings on environmental clearance because her PIL mainly concerns compliance with the Forest Rights Act in areas likely to be affected by the project and the rights of the Shompen and Nicobarese communities.

The Supreme Court appeared to accept that the high court should examine those issues first. It indicated that the question was no longer only whether the petition was maintainable but whether the challenge itself survives on merits, a question it left for the high court to decide.

Project And Stakes

The project is large and strategic. It includes an international container transhipment terminal, a greenfield international airport, a power complex and an urban township.

It is planned on Great Nicobar Island, close to the Malacca Strait. The government has described it as important for India’s maritime and strategic interests, which is why the case has drawn attention beyond environmental law.

The environmental footprint is also a central part of the case. Government estimates cited in the proceedings say the project requires diversion of about 130.75 sq km of forest land and the felling of thousands of trees.

That has kept the tribal consent issue alive. The rights and consent of indigenous communities have remained contentious through the approval process and now sit at the heart of Gupta’s challenge.

The Shompen’s status sharpens that concern. They are classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group and continue to maintain a largely isolated way of life in the island’s forests, making the outcome of the high court hearing important both for the project and for the scope of legal protection available to them.