CivilsWisdom.
Updated · Today
Environment & Ecology May 17, 2026 5 min read Daily brief · #8 of 27

Forest Rights and the Great Nicobar Mega-Project: The case before the Calcutta High Court

Three connected Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging Forest Rights Act violations in the Great Nicobar Island development project were admitted as ...

GS Paper 2 (Polity Governance Social Justice) and GS Paper 3 (Environment)

What Happened

  • Three connected Public Interest Litigations (PILs) challenging Forest Rights Act violations in the Great Nicobar Island development project were admitted as maintainable by the Calcutta High Court.
  • The Court rejected the Union Government's objection that the petitioner — a retired IAS officer residing in Hyderabad — lacked locus standi to challenge actions affecting a tribal community in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
  • The Court held that projects of "national importance" involving "enormous expenditure" are not immune from judicial review and must comply with applicable laws.
  • The matters have been listed for final hearing on June 23, 2026.

Static Topic Bridges

Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 — Key Provisions

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (FRA) recognises and vests forest rights in tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers who have been residing in and dependent on forests for generations.

  • Individual forest rights (Section 3(1)(a)): rights to cultivate and habitate forest land.
  • Community forest rights (Section 3(1)(b)–(i)): community tenure, management, and use of community forest resources.
  • Habitat rights for PVTGs (Section 3(1)(e) read with Rule 12(1)(d)): special rights for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups over their traditional habitat areas — the most expansive category of rights under the Act.
  • Section 6: The Gram Sabha is the primary authority for initiating, verifying, and resolving forest rights claims. Its resolution is mandatory before rights can be recorded or diverted.
  • Consent requirement: Gram Sabha consent is a legally mandated precondition for any diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes in areas covered by FRA-recognised rights.

Connection to this news: The PILs allege that the "recognition of forest rights certificate" obtained for the Great Nicobar project is void because proper Gram Sabha processes were not followed and a Tribal Welfare Officer was used as a proxy to grant consent — a mechanism not authorised anywhere in the FRA or its rules.

PVTGs are a sub-category of Scheduled Tribes identified on the basis of pre-agricultural technology, low literacy, economic backwardness, and declining or stagnant population. There are 75 PVTGs notified across India.

  • The Shompen of Great Nicobar are among India's 75 PVTGs with a population of approximately 240.
  • Under the FRA, PVTGs are entitled to habitat rights — a form of collective territorial right over their entire traditional habitat, not merely plot-by-plot cultivation claims.
  • Rule 12(1)(d) of the FRA Rules mandates that the Forest Rights Committee ensure all PVTG habitat claims are filed and verified before the Gram Sabha.
  • There is no provision under the FRA permitting a third party — including a government-nominated Tribal Welfare Officer — to represent a PVTG or grant consent on its behalf.

Connection to this news: The petition specifically challenges the appointment of a Tribal Welfare Officer to grant consent on behalf of the Shompen, arguing this is a fundamental procedural violation that renders the FRA clearance null.

Gram Sabha — Role and Power Under FRA

The Gram Sabha under the FRA is not the same as the Gram Sabha under the Panchayati Raj system. For Scheduled Areas, it is the primary constitutional body with significant autonomous powers.

  • The Gram Sabha receives forest rights claims, consolidates and verifies them, prepares a map, and passes a resolution (Section 6(1)).
  • Any person aggrieved by the Gram Sabha resolution can petition the Sub-Divisional Level Committee within 60 days.
  • The District Level Committee finally approves forest rights records; its decision is binding.
  • Gram Sabha consent for forest diversion must be free, prior, and informed — a standard derived from constitutional provisions (Fifth and Sixth Schedules), the PESA Act, 1996, and international frameworks (ILO Convention 169).

Connection to this news: The Tribal Council of Great and Little Nicobar formally withdrew its consent for the project in 2022. Petitioners allege that subsequent administrative actions to re-obtain consent involved coercion, with tribal leaders in January 2026 alleging pressure to sign certificates surrendering ancestral land.

Judicial Review of Projects of "National Importance"

Indian constitutional jurisprudence firmly holds that executive decisions — including those involving large public expenditure or strategic interests — are subject to judicial review for procedural compliance with applicable law.

  • Article 13 of the Constitution makes any law or executive action inconsistent with fundamental rights void to the extent of inconsistency.
  • Procedural compliance with FRA is a statutory obligation — its violation is not excused by policy rationale or project scale.
  • The Calcutta High Court specifically held: "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 NGT cleared the project in February 2026 on grounds of "adequate safeguards," but the NGT's jurisdiction does not cover FRA violations — those are properly before the High Court.

Connection to this news: The Court's ruling on maintainability is itself significant — it affirms that even when the Union Government invokes national interest, procedural rights of tribal communities under FRA are justiciable and cannot be bypassed.

Calcutta High Court Jurisdiction over Andaman and Nicobar

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands fall within the territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court, which also exercises jurisdiction over West Bengal, making it the appropriate forum for constitutional and statutory challenges related to the islands.

  • The Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands does not have a High Court of its own.
  • The Calcutta HC has supervisory jurisdiction and hears writ petitions, including PILs, for matters arising from the islands.

Connection to this news: The choice of forum (Calcutta HC) is not unusual — it is the constitutionally designated court for judicial oversight of Andaman and Nicobar administration.

Key Facts & Data

  • PILs filed by: retired IAS officer Meena Gupta
  • Grounds: violation of FRA 2006, improper tribal consent process, reduction of eco-sensitive buffer zones around national parks
  • Court: Calcutta High Court (Division Bench)
  • Maintainability ruling: May 2026
  • Next hearing: June 23, 2026
  • FRA 2006: enacted as Act 2 of 2007; recognises rights of STs and other traditional forest dwellers
  • PVTGs in India: 75 notified groups (Shompen of Great Nicobar among them)
  • Tribal Council withdrew consent: 2022
  • Gram Sabha consent mechanism: Section 6, FRA 2006; Rule 12(1)(d), FRA Rules
  • PESA (Panchayats (Extension to Scheduled Areas) Act), 1996: also mandates Gram Sabha consent for land acquisition in Scheduled Areas
On this page
  1. What Happened
  2. Static Topic Bridges
  3. Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 — Key Provisions
  4. Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) — Legal and Constitutional Status
  5. Gram Sabha — Role and Power Under FRA
  6. Judicial Review of Projects of "National Importance"
  7. Calcutta High Court Jurisdiction over Andaman and Nicobar
  8. Key Facts & Data
Display