Great Nicobar Project in the Supreme Court: Forest Rights, Strategic Ambition and the Limits of Development

The Union government has approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) seeking a stay on further proceedings in petitions pending final hearing before the Calcutta High Court, which allege that provisions of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 were violated in obtaining consent for the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island (GNI) project. Supreme Court records show that the SLP was filed on 24 July, and the Court’s website lists it for tentative hearing on 5 October. The Centre argues that the petitioner, Meena Gupta, a retired IAS officer who served as Secretary in both the Environment and Tribal Affairs Ministries, has no locus standi and that the challenges are an “abuse of process”.

On 6 May 2026, a Calcutta High Court Bench rejected the Centre’s preliminary objection, holding that the petitioner had “sufficient interest” and was espousing the cause of the vulnerable tribal community. The High Court has fixed the final hearing for 25 and 26 November 2026, to which, according to its records, the Centre consented as recently as 24 September. The case therefore illustrates a familiar tension in Indian governance: the state’s claim to advance national strategic and economic interests, and the constitutional and statutory rights of forest-dwelling communities.

For UPSC aspirants the issue joins several domains: environmental law, tribal rights, federal and judicial process, maritime strategy in the Indian Ocean and the debate over sustainable development.

Background and Context

Five Important Key Points

• The Great Nicobar Island project, valued at ₹92,000 crore, is a planned mega infrastructure development on a remote island in the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago.
• The petitions before the Calcutta High Court challenge Gram Sabha resolutions consenting to forest diversion under the FRA, a sub-divisional level committee, the reduction of buffer zones of the Campbell Bay and Galathea Bay National Parks, and a certificate that all forest rights had been settled.
• The High Court on 6 May 2026 rejected the Centre’s locus standi objection, noting that the petitioner had helped draft the Bill that became the FRA.
• The Centre’s SLP, filed on 24 July, is listed for tentative hearing on 5 October, while the High Court’s final hearing is set for 25 and 26 November.
• The Centre says the country’s growth cannot be stopped by claims of private individuals, whereas the petitioners contend that tribal consent processes were flawed.

The Project and Its Rationale

Conceived by NITI Aayog, the project envisages an international container transshipment terminal at Galathea Bay, a greenfield airport with dual civil and military use, a gas and solar power plant and a township, spread over roughly 166 square kilometres, of which about 130 sq km is forest land proposed for diversion. Its strategic logic is compelling. The island lies close to the Strait of Malacca, through which a large share of world trade and much of China’s energy imports pass, and only around 150 nautical miles from Indonesia’s Sumatra. A transshipment port could reduce India’s dependence on Colombo, Singapore and Klang for handling its cargo, capturing revenue and supporting the maritime security objective of a stronger presence at the entrance to the Malacca Strait.

Legal and Constitutional Framework

The FRA recognises the rights of Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers over forest land and resources. Section 4(5) bars eviction or removal until recognition and verification are complete, and the 2009 circular of the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change requires the consent of Gram Sabhas before diversion of forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, now the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam after its 2023 amendment. In Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013), the Supreme Court, dealing with Vedanta’s bauxite mining in Niyamgiri, held that Gram Sabhas must decide on religious and cultural rights affected by a project. Article 21 has been read to include the right to a healthy environment, Article 48A directs the State to protect forests and wildlife, and Article 51A(g) makes protection of the environment a fundamental duty. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956 separately protects the Shompen and other groups.

The Tribal Dimension

Great Nicobar is home to the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) of hunter-gatherers with little immunity to outside diseases, and to the Nicobarese. Anthropologists and tribal bodies have warned that large-scale settlement, expected to add a population many times the indigenous number, could cause irreversible harm. The Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar reportedly withdrew its no-objection in 2022, saying it had been misled about the land involved. The petitions before the High Court question whether a valid FRA process was ever completed, particularly since the Shompen and their forest rights are said to have been treated as a matter of the administration’s “certificate”, not community deliberation.

Environmental Concerns

The island is designated a Biosphere Reserve and contains dense tropical rainforest, mangroves and coral reefs, with endemic species such as the Nicobar megapode and the giant leatherback turtle that nests on Galathea Bay. The Galathea Bay Wildlife Sanctuary was denotified in 2021, and the notified buffer zones of national parks have been reduced. The forest diversion could involve felling lakhs of trees, and compensatory afforestation has been proposed in Haryana, far from the island’s ecology. The National Green Tribunal in 2023 declined to interfere with the environmental clearance but constituted a High-Powered Committee to revisit certain aspects. The region falls in Seismic Zone V, and the 2004 tsunami caused a subsidence of parts of Great Nicobar, raising doubts about the resilience of port and airport infrastructure.

Governance and Judicial Process Questions

The Centre’s stance that the petitioner lacks locus standi tests the reach of public interest litigation, which since S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) has permitted concerned citizens to approach courts on behalf of those who cannot. The High Court accepted that a former Secretary who helped draft the FRA has a genuine interest. The Centre’s attempt to seek a stay of the High Court through an SLP, while agreeing to a November hearing, may appear inconsistent. Another concern is that strategic projects are being fast-tracked through exemptions, for example, the 2023 amendment to forest law exempting strategic linear projects within 100 km of borders, which encourages a perception that consent processes are treated as procedural hurdles.

Comparative Perspective and Parallels

The Niyamgiri hills in Odisha are the closest parallel: the Supreme Court in 2013 required Gram Sabha consent, and 12 Dongria Kondh villages unanimously rejected Vedanta’s bauxite mining, a decision which activists now defend as attempts to revive mining resurface. In Australia, the principle of free, prior and informed consent, found in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007), has shaped mining law after the Juukan Gorge destruction in 2020. Indonesia’s plan to relocate its capital to Nusantara has similarly faced criticism for its impact on Indigenous communities and forests. Strategic ports such as Hambantota show that capacity alone does not guarantee commercial viability.

Bihar Connection

Bihar’s tribal and forest-dwelling communities, including the Santhal, Oraon, Munda and Tharu, live in areas such as Kaimur, Jamui, Banka, Katihar and West Champaran, which includes the Valmiki Tiger Reserve. The Tharu community was recognised as a Scheduled Tribe in 2003. The FRA implementation record in Bihar has been modest, with low recognition of claims relative to other States, and disputes between forest management and communities in reserve areas. The Great Nicobar case will influence the standard of Gram Sabha consent expected across India, including in Bihar’s protected areas and in any future diversion of forest land for infrastructure. It also reinforces the State’s need to document community rights before projects are taken up.

Way Forward

The Supreme Court should decide the locus standi and consent questions expeditiously, so that the project is neither stalled by uncertainty nor built on a defective foundation. An independent, transparent audit of the FRA process on the island, involving the Tribal Council, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes and a scientific body, should be conducted before any irreversible work. Environmental safeguards, including a marine and seismic risk reassessment and a credible in-situ compensatory plan, must be published. The Shompen policy, based on non-contact and minimal intervention, should be codified with binding safeguards. The government should explore phased development, starting with strategic and port facilities in the least ecologically sensitive areas. For the long term, India needs a national framework linking strategic projects to community consent, so that development and rights are reconciled.

Relevance for UPSC and SSC Examinations

UPSC: GS-III (environmental impact assessment, conservation, infrastructure, security challenges in coastal areas); GS-II (issues relating to Scheduled Tribes, judiciary); GS-I (tribal society); Essay (development versus environment). SSC: Environment and Polity (Forest Rights Act 2006, Biosphere Reserves, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, PVTGs, Article 48A). Key terms: Great Nicobar Island project, Shompen, PVTG, Forest Rights Act 2006, Gram Sabha consent, Niyamgiri (2013), locus standi, Special Leave Petition, Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, Galathea Bay, Strait of Malacca.