Great Nicobar project: Supreme Court rejects govt’s plea, fast-tracks HC scrutiny
Supreme Court Speeds Up Great Nicobar Project Case
Bharatmorning.com – The Supreme Court has declined to stop the legal challenge to statutory approvals for the ₹920-billion Great Nicobar project, instead asking the Calcutta High Court to conclude its examination as soon as possible.
A three-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, heard petitions from the Centre and the Andaman and Nicobar administration. The petitions challenged a May 6 order of the Calcutta High Court’s circuit bench at Port Blair, which allowed former IAS officer Meena Gupta’s public-interest case to proceed.
The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Gupta’s objections. It said the High Court had already decided the question of whether the petition could be heard and should now complete the remaining pleadings and take up the matter without delay.
Petition raises tribal rights concerns
Gupta’s petition questions approvals connected with the proposed development, arguing that they may affect legal and customary protections for the Shompen and Nicobarese communities. The case focuses on whether the rights of these indigenous groups were sufficiently considered before the approvals were granted.
Gupta previously served as secretary in the Union tribal affairs ministry and the environment ministry. She was involved in drafting the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and has also worked on matters concerning the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The Centre argued that Gupta lacked standing because no forest-dwelling tribal person had authorised her to file the case. The High Court rejected that objection, noting that a petition involving vulnerable communities should not fail only because the petitioner does not live on the islands or belong to the affected groups.
The High Court also observed that people whose rights may be affected do not always have the resources or practical ability to approach courts themselves. It distinguished the petition from proceedings before the National Green Tribunal concerning environmental clearances.
Supreme Court highlights cultural protection
During the hearing on the Great Nicobar project, senior advocate S. Muralidhar, appearing for Gupta, said tribal councils wanted to participate in the proceedings. He submitted that members of the Shompen and Nicobarese communities had said they were not heard before approvals were issued.
Attorney General R. Venkataramani, assisted by Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, disputed that claim and told the court that tribal communities had been consulted.
The bench nevertheless underlined the distinctive status of the Shompen and Nicobarese people and stressed the need to protect their social and cultural identity.
“They are unique tribes, and they need preservation,” the bench observed.
The judges referred to the experience of the Great Andamanese, who have largely integrated with the mainstream, and asked whether the Shompen should be able to preserve their distinct identity if they wished to do so.
“The question is, Shompen tribes, if they want to preserve their uniqueness, should they be able to do so?” the bench asked.
The court said cultural preservation has a constitutional dimension and cannot be treated as a secondary issue in development decisions. It noted that ecological concerns are commonly considered in projects involving protected landscapes, but indigenous culture also requires meaningful constitutional protection.
“Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. When you talk about an eco park, it is about ecology. Tribal culture must receive constitutional protection,” the bench said.
Security and commercial development
The Attorney General described the Great Nicobar project as one of exceptional national importance. The Supreme Court responded that claims involving national security should be carefully separated from questions concerning commercial use and development.
“There has to be filtration between security of the State and commercial exploitation,” the bench observed.
The observation does not decide whether the project or its approvals are legally valid. The Calcutta High Court will now examine the competing issues, including development objectives, environmental considerations and protections for indigenous communities.
Great Nicobar Project: Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Supreme Court refused to halt the High Court proceedings. It asked the Calcutta High Court to complete the remaining pleadings and make every effort to conclude the hearing promptly.
Who has challenged the approvals?
Former IAS officer Meena Gupta filed the public-interest petition. Her challenge raises concerns about the protection of the Shompen and Nicobarese communities.
Has the court stopped the project?
No. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the validity of the approvals or stopped the development. It has left those questions for the Calcutta High Court to consider.
Why are tribal rights central to the case?
The case concerns whether legal, customary, social and cultural protections for indigenous communities were adequately considered before approvals for the proposed development were granted.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Great Nicobar project?Great Nicobar project is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does Great Nicobar project matter?Great Nicobar project matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.