Calcutta HC Upholds PIL on Great Nicobar Forest Rights Violations — Expands Locus Standi

<h3>Overview</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> has dismissed the Union Government’s objection to a <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> filed by retired IAS officer <strong>Meena Gupta</strong>. The petition challenges alleged violations of the <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> in connection with the <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>.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>The bench of <strong>Chief Justice Sujoy Paul</strong> and <strong>Justice Partha Sarathi Sen</strong> held that “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 rejected the Union’s claim that the 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>Important Facts</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 <span class="key-term" data-definition="Additional Solicitor General — a senior law officer of the Government of India who assists the Attorney General in representing the Union in courts (GS2: Polity)">ASG</span>, argued that the PILs were non‑maintainable because the petitioner was not a resident of the Andaman &amp; Nicobar Islands and that strategic projects must prevail over judicial scrutiny.</p> <p>• The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents such as <em>People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India</em> and <em>State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaudhary</em>, underscoring that PILs serve to secure justice for communities that cannot access courts themselves.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The judgment illustrates the balance between <strong>environmental protection</strong> and <strong>strategic development</strong>, a recurring theme in GS III (Environment) and GS II (Polity). It reinforces the doctrine that public‑interest litigation is a vital tool for upholding constitutional rights of tribal and forest‑dwelling communities, linking to topics on <span class="key-term" data-definition="Fundamental Rights — rights guaranteed by the Constitution of India, including the right to equality and protection of the environment (GS1: Constitution)">Fundamental Rights</span> and the role of the judiciary in policy implementation.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <ul> <li>Await the detailed judgment on 23 June 2026 to gauge the scope of judicial review over large infrastructure projects.</li> <li>Monitor how the Court’s interpretation of <span class="key-term" data-definition="locus standi — the legal right to bring an action or suit in court (GS2: Polity)">locus standi</span> in PILs influences future filings on environmental and tribal issues.</li> <li>Prepare for potential policy revisions concerning buffer‑zone reductions around protected areas like Galathea and Campbell Bay National Parks.</li> </ul>