Overview: On June 19, 2026, Congress Rajya Sabha MP Jairam Ramesh called the defence of the Great Nicobar Island Project by Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav “disappointing and unsatisfactory”. He accused the Ministry of an “extraordinary level of non‑transparency” for withholding reports, studies and plans on the project’s environmental safeguards.
Key Developments
- Ramesh’s reply was to a letter dated June 13, 2026, which itself responded to his communication of June 3, 2026. The exchange is part of a year‑long correspondence.
- The minister cited the National Green Tribunal (NGT) decision of February 16, 2026, which cleared the way for the project, stating that strategic importance left “no good ground to interfere”.
- The NGT also directed strict compliance with the Environmental Clearance (EC) conditions and accepted the Centre’s stance on keeping the High‑Powered Committee (HPC) report confidential.
- A Finance Ministry meeting in August 2024 noted that the port component, valued at ₹48,862 crore, “lacked strategic objectives”.
- The project, estimated at ₹81,000 crore, includes an international container transshipment port at Galathea Bay, an airport, a power plant and a greenfield township. It would require felling nearly one million trees and affect a leather‑back turtle nesting site.
Important Facts
Ramesh argued that the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) appraisal was “premature and hastily” done. He highlighted that six‑monthly compliance reports have not been published since March 2024. Conservation and mitigation plans prepared by the Wildlife Institute of India and the Zoological Survey of India remain unavailable.
Proposed mitigation measures, such as “large‑scale relocation of coral colonies”, were described as “clearly unrealistic and almost impossible”. Ramesh stressed that strategic rationale cannot justify opacity.
Exam Relevance
- Understanding the role of the NGT and its interaction with the Ministry of Environment is essential for GS3 (Environment) and GS4 (Ethics).
- The case illustrates the procedural aspects of EC, the functioning of the HPC, and the accountability of ministries – topics covered under GS2 (Polity) and GS3.
- The impact on the Shompen community raises questions of tribal rights, sustainable development and ethical governance.
- The financial magnitude (₹81,000 crore) and strategic framing of the project provide a case study for infrastructure planning, strategic‑economic policy and environmental trade‑offs – relevant to GS3.
Way Forward
For a balanced outcome, the following steps are recommended:
- Publish the pending six‑monthly compliance reports and all mitigation plans to ensure public scrutiny.
- Conduct an independent review of the EAC findings, focusing on realistic mitigation measures.
- Engage the Shompen community and civil‑society groups in decision‑making.
- Re‑evaluate the strategic justification against the ecological cost, using a transparent cost‑benefit analysis.
These actions would address the transparency concerns raised by the opposition and align the project with constitutional and environmental safeguards.