Calcutta High Court to hear pleas against Great Nicobar project in June; overrules Centre’s objections

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in...

What Happened

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in connection with the Great Nicobar Island development project, overruling the Union Government's objection that the petitioner lacked locus standi.
A Division Bench observed that there can be "no thumb rule" for locus standi in PIL matters and that courts must permit genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities to be raised even by persons not directly residing in the affected area.
The court noted that tribal populations in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands are "very vulnerable" and ordinarily not accessible to common persons, justifying relaxed locus standi standards for PIL petitioners espousing their cause.
The matters have been directed to be listed for final hearing on June 23, 2026.
A key legal concern before the court is whether Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of the Shompen tribe — a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG) — was validly obtained, given that a Tribal Welfare Officer was nominated to grant consent on their behalf, a procedure not sanctioned by the Forest Rights Act.

Static Topic Bridges

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and Locus Standi

PIL is a form of litigation introduced in India in the late 1970s and early 1980s through judicial innovation, allowing any public-spirited citizen to approach constitutional courts on behalf of those who cannot access justice themselves. Justice P.N. Bhagwati and Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer are credited with developing the PIL doctrine. Traditional locus standi — the requirement that only an aggrieved party can file a suit — was relaxed in PIL to allow courts to take cognizance of public wrongs. The Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981) firmly established that any member of the public can maintain a PIL if they act bona fide for public interest. The Calcutta High Court's ruling in this case reaffirms that PIL petitioners need not reside in the affected area when vulnerable communities are concerned.

Locus standi in PIL: liberalised by Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981.
Article 226 of the Constitution: High Courts' writ jurisdiction — the constitutional basis for PILs in High Courts.
Article 32: Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction — gateway for PIL at the apex court.
PILs have expanded to cover environmental rights, tribal rights, prisoner rights, and gender justice.
The court can treat even a letter or postcard as a writ petition if the cause is genuine (epistolary jurisdiction).

Connection to this news: The High Court's rejection of the Centre's locus standi objection applies established PIL doctrine to a new factual context — environmental and tribal rights violations by a state-backed mega project — reinforcing that high-cost, "nationally important" infrastructure must still comply with the law.

Forest Rights Act, 2006 and Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs)

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 — commonly called the Forest Rights Act (FRA) — recognises and vests forest rights in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes (FDSTs) and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs). Section 3(1)(e) of the FRA grants habitat rights to PVTGs — rights over their customary habitat areas extending beyond individual land parcels. PVTGs are among India's most socially and economically marginalised tribal communities, identified by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs (75 groups notified as of 2024). The Shompen of Great Nicobar Island — with a population of approximately 237 — are a PVTG classified as a semi-nomadic hunter-gatherer community with no exposure to the outside world and no capacity to engage formal legal processes independently.

FRA, 2006: enacted to "undo the historic injustice" done to forest-dwelling tribes; came into force January 1, 2008.
Section 6 of FRA: Gram Sabha is the primary authority for initiating, verifying, and passing resolutions on forest rights claims — consent of the Gram Sabha is mandatory for forest diversion.
Rule 12(1)(d) of FRA Rules: requires verification of PVTG claims when territories are used for habitation, livelihood, and cultural purposes.
FRA has no provision allowing a third party (such as a Tribal Welfare Officer) to give consent on behalf of a PVTG — the consent of the concerned community's Gram Sabha is mandatory.
84.10 sq km of Tribal Reserve area has been denotified for the Great Nicobar project.
Only 10 PVTGs across 14 districts in 3 states (Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh) have been granted habitat rights as of 2024.

Connection to this news: The PIL before the Calcutta High Court directly challenges whether the FRA's mandatory consent procedure was followed for the Shompen — making this a landmark test case for PVTG rights vis-à-vis large-scale infrastructure.

Great Nicobar Island Development Project — Overview and Clearances

The Great Nicobar project is a flagship infrastructure initiative piloted by NITI Aayog and implemented by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO). It proposes four major components: an international container transshipment terminal at Galathea Bay, a greenfield dual-use (civilian and military) airport, an integrated township, and a power generation facility. The project involves diversion of approximately 130 sq km of forest land, including the felling of around one million trees, on an island classified as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve and home to ecologically sensitive habitats including leatherback sea turtle nesting grounds. The National Green Tribunal cleared the project in February 2026 citing national strategic importance, while directing strict compliance with environmental conditions.

Total project cost: approximately ₹72,000–75,000 crore.
Location: Galathea Bay, Great Nicobar Island — India's southernmost territory, ~150 km from the Strait of Malacca.
Great Nicobar is part of the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago — a Union Territory administered under Article 239 of the Constitution.
Environmental clearance issues: PVTG consent validity, Gram Sabha quorum disputes, and proximity to Galathea National Park.
NGT cleared the project in February 2026; the Calcutta High Court PIL now presents a parallel legal challenge.
A Gram Sabha that gave clearance reportedly did not meet the mandatory 50% quorum requirement under FRA rules.

Connection to this news: The Calcutta High Court's decision to hear the case on merits in June 2026 means the project's compliance with FRA's consent provisions will receive judicial scrutiny even after NGT clearance — demonstrating that environment and tribal law can constrain projects even after regulatory approvals.

Key Facts & Data

Shompen population: approximately 237 — one of India's most isolated PVTGs.
Project cost: approximately ₹72,000–75,000 crore.
Forest diversion: ~130 sq km including felling of ~1 million trees.
84.10 sq km of Tribal Reserve area denotified for the project.
Great Nicobar Island: ~910 sq km; part of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Union Territory.
Distance from the Strait of Malacca: approximately 150 km.
FRA enacted 2006; in force from January 1, 2008.
PIL locus standi: S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1981 — foundational precedent.
Final hearing scheduled: June 23, 2026 before the Calcutta High Court.
NGT cleared the project: February 2026.