Calcutta HC Great Nicobar वन अधिकार उल्लंघनों पर PIL को समर्थन देता है — Locus Standi का विस्तार

<h3>समीक्षा</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Calcutta High Court — the highest judicial authority in the Indian state of West Bengal, exercising jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters (GS2: Polity)">Calcutta High Court</span> ने Union Government की आपत्ति को खारिज कर दिया <span class="key-term" data-definition="Public Interest Litigation — a legal mechanism that allows any public‑spirited individual or group to approach the courts for the protection of collective rights, especially of disadvantaged sections (GS2: Polity, GS4: Ethics)">PIL</span> के खिलाफ, जो retired IAS officer <strong>Meena Gupta</strong> द्वारा दायर किया गया था। यह याचिका <span class="key-term" data-definition="Forest Rights Act (2006) — legislation that recognises the rights of forest‑dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, aiming to protect their land and livelihood (GS3: Environment, GS2: Polity)">Forest Rights Act</span> के कथित उल्लंघनों को चुनौती देती है, जो <span class="key-term" data-definition="Great Nicobar infrastructure project — a multi‑billion‑dollar development plan involving a port, airport, power plant and defence facilities on Great Nicobar Island (GS3: Environment, GS2: Polity)">Great Nicobar infrastructure project</span> से जुड़ी है।</p> <h3>मुख्य विकास</h3> <ul> <li>The bench of <strong>Chief Justice Sujoy Paul</strong> and <strong>Justice Partha Sarathi Sen</strong> ने कहा कि “there can be no thumb rule” on locus standi in PILs, allowing persons not directly affected to raise genuine public causes.</li> <li>Quoting <span class="key-term" data-definition="Rule 56 — a provision of the Civil Procedure Code that empowers any member of the public to file a petition on behalf of those who are unable to approach the court due to poverty, disability or social disadvantage (GS2: Polity)">Rule 56</span>, the Court ने Union की यह दावा खारिज कर दिया कि petitioner, a Hyderabad resident, lacked standing.</li> <li>The Court emphasized that large‑scale projects, even with an estimated cost of <strong>₹72,000 crore</strong>, are not immune from judicial review.</li> <li>Objections based on procedural bars such as Order II Rule 2 CPC and res judicata were dismissed, as each petition arose from distinct notifications.</li> <li>The matters have been ordered for final hearing on <strong>June 23, 2026</strong>.</li> </ul> <h3>महत्वपूर्ण तथ्य</h3> <p>• The petitioner, <strong>Meena Gupta</strong>, previously served as Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs and contributed to the finalisation of the Forest Rights Bill. She also helped replace “Primitive Tribal Groups” with “Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups” (<span class="key-term" data-definition="PVTG — Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups, a classification of tribal communities identified as the most socially and economically disadvantaged (GS3: Environment, GS2: Polity)">PVTG</span>).</p> <p>• The Union Government, represented by the </p>