Calcutta HC 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, i...

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.
The court rejected the Union government's objection that petitioners lacked locus standi (legal standing) to file the PILs, holding that courts must allow genuine public causes — particularly those concerning vulnerable tribal communities — to be heard even when the petitioner is not directly affected.
A Division Bench ruled that no "thumb rule" governs locus standi in PILs, and that the petitioner demonstrated a substantial and longstanding connection with the subject matter.
The court also held that a project's national importance or scale of expenditure does not immunise it from judicial review: "A project involving huge expenditure must proceed in accordance with governing laws."
The matters have been directed to be listed for final hearing on June 23, 2026.

Static Topic Bridges

The Great Nicobar Island Development Project

The Great Nicobar Island Development Project is a ₹81,000-crore infrastructure initiative on Great Nicobar Island (the southernmost island of the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago) planned by NITI Aayog and implemented by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Integrated Development Corporation (ANIIDCO). The project comprises: an international container transshipment terminal at Galathea Bay (notified as India's 13th major port in 2024); a dual-use civil-military greenfield airport; a power plant; and a township. The island's location — near the Strait of Malacca, one of the world's busiest shipping lanes — gives it high strategic value for India's Indo-Pacific posture. Environmental clearance was granted by the MoEFCC Expert Appraisal Committee in November 2022.

Estimated cost: ₹81,000 crore (~USD 9.7 billion)
Area: ~16,610 hectares (166 sq km) of Great Nicobar Island
Forest diversion: approximately 9.64 lakh trees would be felled (official GoI figure; independent estimates are higher)
Galathea Bay port: Phase 1 capacity of 4 million TEUs; targeted for commissioning by 2028
National Green Tribunal (NGT): ruled in favour of the project in February 2026, citing adequate safeguards and strategic importance
The project was nonetheless challenged before both the NGT and the Calcutta HC on separate grounds

Connection to this news: The Calcutta HC PILs directly target alleged Forest Rights Act violations in the project's approvals, reopening scrutiny of the environmental and tribal clearance process that the NGT had declined to interfere with.

Forest Rights Act, 2006 (The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act)

The Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006, recognises and vests forest rights in scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers who have occupied forest land for at least 3 generations (75 years). Key provisions include: Individual Forest Rights (IFR) over land cultivated; Community Forest Rights (CFR) over community resources; and critically, the requirement of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) from the Gram Sabha before any forest land is diverted for non-forest use. The FRA mandates that rights must be fully recognised and settled before diversion — a condition that critics allege was not met for Great Nicobar.

Full name: Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006
Implementing body: Ministry of Tribal Affairs (recognitions); Ministry of Environment (forest diversion clearances)
Section 5: Gram Sabha consent is mandatory before forest diversion
Great Nicobar controversy: The Nicobarese Tribal Council alleged the administration falsely certified that FRA rights had been settled; the Union government ordered a review
The Andaman administration separately claimed that the Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Regulation, 1956, already protects tribal interests, making FRA inapplicable — a contested position

Connection to this news: The PILs before the Calcutta HC allege that the FRA's mandatory Gram Sabha consent process was bypassed or falsely certified for Great Nicobar, making the forest diversion clearance legally defective.

Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) and Constitutional Protections

Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) are the most marginalised sub-set of Scheduled Tribes, identified on criteria such as pre-agricultural technology, a stagnant or declining population, extremely low literacy, and subsistence-level economy. India has 75 notified PVTGs. The Shompen — the indigenous people of the interior forests of Great Nicobar Island — are a PVTG with an estimated population of fewer than 300. They practice a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and have minimal contact with the outside world. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956, establishes tribal reserves and prohibits unauthorised access to areas inhabited by aboriginal groups including the Shompen.

Shompen PVTG population: estimated below 300
Shompen Policy (2015): mandates minimal interference; large-scale projects must be reviewed by an Empowered Committee
Constitutional basis for tribal protection: Article 342 (Presidential notification of Scheduled Tribes); Fifth Schedule (administration of Scheduled Areas); Sixth Schedule (tribal areas in Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, Mizoram with autonomous councils)
Great Nicobar is NOT under the Sixth Schedule — the islands lack the autonomous tribal council structure that Northeast tribal areas possess
This absence of Sixth Schedule protection is one reason critics argue tribal consent is even more important to enforce through FRA mechanisms

Connection to this news: The Calcutta HC's observation that the Shompen are "very vulnerable" reflects the PVTG status and the heightened duty of care that the State owes to pre-agricultural, near-contact-free communities whose survival can be threatened by large infrastructure intrusion.

Judicial Review of Environmental Clearances and Locus Standi in PILs

Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is a mechanism evolved by the Supreme Court since the early 1980s (P.N. Bhagwati, J.) to expand access to justice by relaxing locus standi — the traditional requirement that only a directly injured party may approach the court. In environmental matters, courts have consistently held that citizens with genuine public interest may challenge executive actions including environmental clearances. The National Green Tribunal (NGT) has exclusive original jurisdiction over environmental disputes under the NGT Act, 2010, but constitutional courts (High Courts and Supreme Court) retain supervisory jurisdiction. The Calcutta HC's ruling reaffirms that even in matters of "strategic" projects, courts will scrutinise compliance with environmental and forest laws.

PIL origin: Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979); liberalised locus standi developed through 1980s judgments
NGT Act, 2010: establishes the National Green Tribunal for fast-track resolution of environmental disputes
Locus standi in PILs: the court can take up a matter if there is bonafide public interest — physical presence in the affected area is not a strict requirement
Judicial review of executive decisions is permissible on grounds of illegality, irrationality, and procedural impropriety (Wednesbury principles as applied in Indian courts)

Connection to this news: The HC's rejection of the Centre's locus standi objection confirms that environmental PILs challenging complex mega-projects remain judicially accessible, and that national security or economic rationale does not place a project above rule-of-law scrutiny.

Key Facts & Data

Project cost: ₹81,000 crore; area: ~16,610 hectares on Great Nicobar Island
Forest diversion: ~9.64 lakh trees (official estimate)
Environmental clearance granted: November 2022, by MoEFCC Expert Appraisal Committee
Galathea Bay notified as India's 13th major port: September 2024
Next hearing before Calcutta HC: June 23, 2026
Forest Rights Act, 2006: Gram Sabha consent mandatory before forest diversion (Section 5)
Shompen: PVTG; population under 300; Great Nicobar Island interior; protected under Andaman & Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956
NGT ruling: February 2026 — upheld environmental clearance, cited adequate safeguards
Great Nicobar does not fall under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution