Top News

The ambitious ₹81,000-crore Great Nicobar project faces a significant legal hurdle as the Calcutta High Court’s Port Blair circuit bench has cleared the way for three Public Interest Litigations (PILs). These petitions, filed by retired Union Secretary Meena Gupta, challenge the foundational clearances and approvals granted to the mega-project.

In a landmark ruling made public on Friday, the bench, led by Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen—dismissed the government’s objections regarding the petitioner's standing. The court's decision ensures that the environmental and tribal rights concerns surrounding the project will receive a full judicial hearing.

Overcoming "Locus Standi" Objections

The Union Government and the Andaman and Nicobar administration initially sought to block the petitions. Additional Solicitor General Ashok Chakraborty argued that Gupta, a resident of Hyderabad, lacked locus standi (the right to bring a case to court). The government contended that she was not a resident of the islands, nor had she been formally authorized by local tribes to represent them. Furthermore, they emphasized that the project is of "great national importance."

However, the High Court took a broader view of justice. Rejecting the idea of a "thumb rule" for maintainability, the bench noted:

“There is no thumb rule regarding the aspect of locus standi.”

The judges highlighted Gupta’s unique background. Not only did she spend years living on the islands, but she was also instrumental in drafting the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006. The court recognized her as "espousing the cause of the vulnerable tribal community," noting that these groups often have limited access to modern legal systems.

Alleged Violations of the Forest Rights Act

At the heart of Gupta’s primary PIL is the validity of the proceedings under the FRA. The petition specifically targets the August 2022 resolutions of three Gram Sabhas, which consented to the diversion of massive forest tracts.

The project requires the diversion of 166.10 sq km of land, which includes:

• 121.87 sq km of protected forest.
• 8.88 sq km of deemed forest.

Gupta alleges that the constitution of the sub-divisional-level committee for the Nicobar district violated the FRA. She argues that the procedural integrity of the Gram Sabha meetings was compromised, potentially undermining the rights of the indigenous people the Act was designed to protect.

The Scope of Judicial Review

While the Centre pointed to the immense cost and strategic value of the project, the High Court remained firm on the necessity of legal compliance. The bench clarified that while it was not yet "entering into the merits of the case," no project is above the law.

“A project involving huge expenditure must proceed in accordance with governing laws holding the field and it is not beyond the scope of judicial review on permissible parameters,” the court stated.

The ₹81,000-crore vision for Great Nicobar is expansive. It includes:

• An international transshipment container port.
• An integrated "smart" township.
• A dual-use (civilian-military) greenfield airport.
• A combined solar and gas power plant.

National Green Tribunal vs. High Court

The government also argued that the PILs constituted "re-litigation," claiming the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had already addressed environmental concerns. The High Court dismissed this, finding that the NGT’s previous orders involved different petitioners and distinct subject matters.

In addition to the forest rights challenge, the court upheld two other PILs filed by Gupta. These focus on the controversial reduction of buffer zones around the Campbell Bay and Galathea National Parks—areas vital to the island's unique biodiversity.

By allowing these petitions to proceed, the Calcutta High Court has signaled that even projects of immense national scale must remain accountable to the environmental and social safeguards established by the Indian Parliament.