SC declines Centre’s plea on Great Nicobar PILs; Congress says ‘hope still flickers’

The Supreme Court has refused to entertain the Centre’s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order upholding the maintainability of public interest litigations (PILs) alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in obtaining consent for the Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project, and directed the high court to proceed with hearing all related matters on November 25 and 26.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, and comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana, on Monday (October 5) noted that the matter was already pending before the Calcutta High Court and asked it to hear the main case along with all connected petitions on the scheduled dates.

Centre’s argument

Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that the issue was of “great national importance” and questioned the maintainability of the PILs. He contended that the project’s environmental clearance had already been challenged before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and objected to multiple proceedings on related issues.

Also read: Great Nicobar project: Strategic dream or ecological gamble?

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said there had already been two rounds of litigation before the NGT concerning the environmental clearance.

Senior advocate S Muralidhar, representing a tribal council impleaded in the case, argued that the matter concerns Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), making a PIL maintainable.

Issue is protection of indigenous communities: SC

During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that the broader issue involved constitutional protection of the identity and culture of indigenous communities. Referring to demographic changes in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, he raised questions about balancing integration with preservation of distinct cultural identities, remarking that protection of culture is a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right.

The Centre had approached the apex court against a May 6 Calcutta High Court order that upheld the maintainability of PILs challenging governmental actions linked to the Great Nicobar project, including alleged violations of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the reduction of eco-sensitive buffer zones around national parks.

Also read: Great Nicobar mega project sparks tribal outcry over rights, ecology

The high court had rejected the Centre’s preliminary objection that petitioner and former bureaucrat Meena Gupta lacked locus standi because she was not a resident of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It held that there could be no rigid rule on locus standi in PILs, particularly in cases concerning vulnerable communities, and observed that projects involving large expenditure or national importance are not immune from judicial review.

Congress welcomes SC decision

Welcoming the Supreme Court’s decision, the Congress said the ruling kept alive hopes of greater ecological scrutiny of the project.

Congress general secretary (communications) Jairam Ramesh said the apex court had rejected what he described as the Modi government’s “ploy and plea” to halt proceedings before the high court.

“This is to be welcomed. Now the matter will be taken up as originally scheduled in the Calcutta High Court on November 25-26. The flame of hope for ecological wisdom still flickers,” Ramesh said in a post on X.

Also read: Great Nicobar project: Why it matters, and why it’s controversial

Congress leaders, including Sonia and Rahul Gandhi, have been vocal critics of the Great Nicobar project, arguing that the proposed transhipment port at Galathea Bay could cause significant ecological damage, including the destruction of coral colonies. Last week, the Congress accused the government of making an “astonishing U-turn” by seeking a stay on the high court proceedings and alleged that it was proceeding with a project that could result in an ecological disaster.

The party has also urged the government to reconsider plans relating to the INS Baaz runway expansion and called for strict implementation of the Forest Rights Act in the islands.

(With agency inputs)