Great Nicobar Project: Supreme Court Refuses Centre's Plea, Calcutta High Court to Hear Tribal Rights Case on November 25-26

The PILs before the Calcutta High Court, which has jurisdiction over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, allege violations of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 in the way consent was obtained for the Great Nicobar project. They also raise concerns about reductions in eco-sensitive buffer zones around national parks.

Great Nicobar is home to indigenous communities, including groups classified as Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). Under the Forest Rights Act, forest-dwelling communities' rights must be recognised, and their consent obtained, before forest land is diverted for projects.

On May 6, the High Court rejected the Centre's preliminary objection that the PILs could not be heard, holding that there can be no rigid rule on who may bring a public interest case, especially where vulnerable communities are involved.

What each side argued

• The Centre: Attorney General R. Venkataramani said the project is of "great national importance" and questioned whether the PILs were maintainable. He pointed out that the project's environmental clearance is already being challenged before the National Green Tribunal, and objected to multiple proceedings on the same project.
• The petitioners: Senior advocate S. Muralidhar argued that the case concerns the rights of PVTGs and is therefore properly brought as a PIL.
• The bench: Noting that the matter was already listed before the High Court, the Supreme Court declined to interfere. Justice Bagchi observed that the broader questions, including the constitutional protection of indigenous identity and culture, and the scope of the petitions, could be kept open for the High Court to consider.

The Supreme Court asked the High Court to complete the pleadings and hear all the pending petitions on the dates already fixed.

Why it matters

The Great Nicobar project is one of the largest infrastructure plans for the islands, and the Centre regards it as strategically important. Critics have raised concerns about forests, wildlife and the rights of indigenous communities. Monday's order does not decide any of those questions. It means the High Court, not the Supreme Court, will examine the forest-rights challenge first, and that the Centre's objection to the case being heard at all has not succeeded.

We will follow the High Court hearing in November.