Calcutta High Court to hear pleas against Great Nicobar project in June; overrules Centre’s objections
HC dismisses Centre’s claim that petitioner has no locus standi, noting that she is espousing the cause of vulnerable tribals; says project of “national importance” and high cost must still follow the law
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Calcutta High Court dismissed the Union government's preliminary objections regarding a PIL against the ₹72,000 crore (as cited by the Additional Solicitor General in the Calcutta HC proceedings) Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project. The court upheld the locus standi of a former IAS officer challenging the project, rejecting the Centre's argument that a project of 'national importance' cannot be questioned in a PIL. The petitions allege violations of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, regarding consent for diverting forest land.
UPSC Perspectives
Polity
This case highlights the crucial interplay between Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Locus Standi, and Judicial Review. The Centre argued the petitioner lacked Locus Standi (the right to bring an action or be heard) as she wasn't a local tribal, and that 'projects of national importance' shouldn't be subject to PILs. The High Court rejected this, reiterating that PILs relax traditional locus standi to allow public-spirited individuals to espouse causes for marginalized groups who cannot approach the court themselves. Furthermore, the court emphasized the scope of Judicial Review—the power of the judiciary to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government. Even sovereign projects involving huge expenditure must operate within 'governing laws holding the field' and are subject to judicial scrutiny. The court also rejected the application of Res Judicata (a matter already judged), noting the current issues were distinct from those previously decided by the .
Governance
The central issue revolves around the implementation of the and the process of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). The FRA recognizes the rights of forest-dwelling tribal communities and other traditional forest dwellers. Crucially, it mandates that forest land cannot be diverted for non-forest purposes without the consent of the Gram Sabha (village assembly). The petition alleges that the consent obtained for the Great Nicobar project was dubious, claiming the Gram Sabhas represent settler communities, not the indigenous and tribes, who should be represented by their Tribal Council. A supplementary affidavit even indicated a lack of the required quorum at the Gram Sabha meetings. This raises significant governance concerns about how development projects are approved in ecologically and socially sensitive areas, questioning whether administrative expediency is prioritizing 'national importance' over the legally mandated rights of indigenous populations.
Environmental
The proposed Great Nicobar project—comprising an international transshipment port, airport, and township—is planned in an ecologically fragile region. The petitions challenge notifications reducing the Buffer Zones of the and . These parks are critical habitats for endemic and endangered species. The is a globally significant nesting site for the Giant Leatherback Turtle. Reducing buffer zones potentially increases edge effects and human-wildlife conflict, undermining conservation efforts. The project’s scale in such a pristine environment necessitates rigorous Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). For UPSC, understanding the delicate balance between large-scale infrastructure development and the conservation of fragile island ecosystems is crucial. The case underscores the tension between ambitious economic projects and the imperatives of biodiversity conservation and climate resilience in vulnerable island territories.