The Calcutta High Court on May 7, 2026 received submissions from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration that revealed a troubling procedural failure at the heart of India’s largest planned infrastructure project. The A&NI administration conceded in an affidavit that the gram sabha meetings convened under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) to obtain consent for the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project were attended by between 2 percent and 15 percent of the adult population — far below the 50 percent quorum mandated by FRA rules. Despite this, the administration argued that these attendance levels constituted “proper quorum,” a claim that strikes at the heart of India’s legal commitments to tribal consent in development decisions.
The Great Nicobar Island project, announced in 2021, includes a transshipment port, an international airport, a township, and a 450-MW power plant on one of the most ecologically sensitive and strategically significant island groups in the Indian Ocean. The project involves clearing large areas of primary rainforest, affecting the habitat of critically endangered species including the Leatherback Sea Turtle and Nicobar Megapode, and imposes development pressures on two Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups — the Shompen and the Nicobarese — who have lived on these islands for centuries and depend on the forest ecosystem for their survival.
💡 Get AI-powered exam prep on your phone!
For UPSC aspirants, this case encapsulates some of the most critical tensions in contemporary Indian governance: development versus ecology, national strategic interest versus tribal rights, procedural compliance versus substantive justice, and the role of the judiciary in enforcing constitutional obligations to forest-dwelling communities. It connects directly to the Forest Rights Act, the Fifth Schedule, environmental law, and the rights of particularly vulnerable tribal groups.
Background and Context: The Forest Rights Act and the Gram Sabha Consent Requirement
Five Important Key Points
- The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Recognition of Rights Act) establishes the gram sabha as the primary authority for determining rights of forest-dwelling communities, and FRA rules explicitly require a quorum of at least 50 percent of adult population at gram sabha meetings, with one-third of attendees being women, before any resolution on forest diversion can be treated as valid.
- The Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration admitted in its affidavit before the Calcutta High Court that the Campbell Bay gram sabha was attended by only 105 persons representing 1.83 percent of the total population of 5,736, while the combined attendance of all three gram sabhas was just 349 persons or 4.6 percent of the total population of 7,519 across seven villages affected by the project.
- The Shompen tribe, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) with a population of approximately 200-400 individuals living in strict isolation, is not represented through the gram sabha structure and should have been consulted through the Tribal Council, which the administration failed to do, according to petitioners challenging the process.
- The ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, which includes a transshipment port, international airport, township, and power plant, involves diverting approximately 130.75 square kilometres of forest land in an ecologically sensitive area that the National Green Tribunal’s expert committee described as requiring extraordinary scrutiny for environmental impact.
- Petitioners before the Calcutta High Court further noted that dozens of names of attendees appeared in all three gram sabha meetings and in some cases names were repeated in the list of attendees of the same gram sabha, raising questions about whether even the reported attendance figures accurately reflect genuine participation.
Legislative Framework: The Forest Rights Act and Its Constitutional Foundations
The Forest Rights Act, 2006 is constitutionally grounded in Article 244 (which provides for the administration of scheduled and tribal areas), the Fifth Schedule (which mandates the creation of Tribes Advisory Councils and special protections for scheduled areas), and the Directive Principles of State Policy, particularly Article 46 which enjoins the state to protect the educational and economic interests of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.
The FRA was enacted to undo what its preamble describes as “historical injustices” suffered by forest-dwelling communities who were denied rights over the forests they had inhabited for generations. The Act recognises individual and community forest rights, right of habitat for PVTGs, and critically, the role of the gram sabha as the authority for recognising and approving forest rights. Section 5 of the FRA empowers gram sabhas to protect wildlife, biodiversity, and the rights of forest-dwelling communities from any form of destructive practices.
The Supreme Court in Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013) — the landmark Niyamgiri Hills case — unequivocally held that gram sabhas of forest-dwelling communities must give their free, prior, and informed consent before forests can be diverted for any purpose, including mining. The court held that this right is not merely procedural but substantive — it is the right of communities to participate meaningfully in decisions that will fundamentally alter their way of life.
Procedural Violations: Quorum, Notice, and Representational Adequacy
The quorum requirement exists precisely because well-attended gram sabhas are the only meaningful proxy for community consent. A meeting attended by 2 percent of the affected population, regardless of what resolutions it passes, cannot credibly be said to represent the community’s decision. The administration’s argument that such attendance constituted “proper quorum” is not merely legally untenable — it represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the consent requirement.
The petitioner’s additional argument about the Shompen tribe deserves particular attention. PVTGs are defined under India’s tribal welfare framework as tribes with declining or stagnant population, pre-agricultural level of technology, extremely low literacy, and subsistence economy. The Shompen are one of the most isolated communities in the world, with minimal contact with the outside world and no institutional engagement with the gram sabha system. Attempting to obtain consent from them through a gram sabha structure to which they have no organic connection is procedurally and substantively inadequate, regardless of whether the quorum requirement is met.
Environmental Dimensions: Ecology at the Intersection of Development
Great Nicobar Island is part of the Andaman and Nicobar Biosphere Reserve and includes large stretches of tropical primary rainforest that are among the most biodiverse terrestrial ecosystems in India. The island hosts nesting sites of the Leatherback Sea Turtle, the world’s largest turtle and a critically endangered species. The proposed port and airport infrastructure would directly impact these nesting beaches.
The Expert Appraisal Committee of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change initially granted environmental clearance with conditions. Independent scientists and environmental groups have challenged the adequacy of the environmental impact assessment, arguing that it failed to adequately account for impacts on biodiversity, seismic risk (the islands are seismically active, having been significantly impacted by the 2004 tsunami), and the rights of tribal communities.
The strategic rationale for the project — a deep-water transshipment port and international airport that would enhance India’s maritime capability in the Indian Ocean, counter Chinese influence, and develop the island chain into an economic hub — is genuine and important. The question is whether this strategic interest justifies procedural shortcuts that violate the rights of the most marginalised communities in India.
Governance and Institutional Failures
The FRA consent failure in the Nicobar case is not an isolated incident. Across India, environmental and tribal rights clearances have been obtained through poorly attended gram sabhas, inadequate notice, and superficial consultations. The problem is systemic: district administrations face pressure to facilitate clearances for large projects, and the legal requirements for genuine consent are treated as bureaucratic hurdles to be managed rather than substantive protections to be honoured.
The institutional weakness of tribal welfare governance — inadequate staffing of tribal welfare departments, absence of independent advocates for tribal communities in clearance processes, limited awareness among tribal communities of their FRA rights — creates conditions in which procedural manipulation becomes routine.
Way Forward: Restoring Substantive Consent Processes
The Calcutta High Court should direct the Andaman and Nicobar administration to hold fresh gram sabha consultations for affected villages in accordance with the FRA’s quorum and notice requirements. For the Shompen, a specially designed consultation protocol developed in partnership with tribal welfare experts and conducted through the Tribal Council, not the gram sabha, is constitutionally required.
More broadly, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs should issue detailed guidelines on consent processes for PVTGs that recognise their distinct cultural, linguistic, and institutional characteristics. An independent tribal rights monitor, accountable to Parliament rather than to project-executing ministries, would provide structural protection against the political pressure that drives procedural violations.
Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations
This topic falls under UPSC GS-II under Government Schemes, Tribal Rights, and Constitutional Provisions, and GS-III under Environment and Ecology, and Infrastructure. It connects to GS-I under tribal societies and social issues. Essay themes on development versus environment, tribal rights, and constitutional obligations are directly relevant. SSC examinations cover tribal welfare schemes and environmental laws. Key terms aspirants must remember include Forest Rights Act 2006, gram sabha consent, Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups, Shompen tribe, Great Nicobar Island project, Niyamgiri Hills case, Article 244, Fifth Schedule, free prior informed consent, and Environmental Impact Assessment.