The Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration has sent a draft Comprehensive Tribal Welfare Plan to district officials for consultation on 24 March 2026 . The plan proposes a ₹42.52 crore scheme over 24 months to relocate Nicobarese tribal families from areas affected by the 2004 tsunami or the GNI mega‑infrastructure project . However, tribal leaders say the document is ambiguous about relocation sites and ignores their forest‑rights claims. Key Developments Draft plan circulated on 13 March 2026 to Nicobar district officials for inter‑departmental and Tribal Council consultation. Tribal Council of Great and Little Nicobar received the draft on 28 March 2026 and was summoned for meetings on 31 March and 1 April 2026 . Council submitted a letter on 1 April 2026 requesting a Hindi translation and a one‑month review period. The Union government told the Calcutta High Court on 30 March 2026 that it needed 15 days to prove tribal consent for the project. The draft mentions relocation to existing encampments at Rajiv Nagar (32 households, 101 persons) and New Chingenh (30 households, 117 persons), with a proposed new site at Pulobhabi on the western coast. Important Facts The plan allocates funds for housing upgrades, land development, annuity/employment programmes, subsistence grants, transport support, fishing rights, resettlement allowances, and community infrastructure (roads, water, sanitation, education, health). Financial tables show upgrading of 62 homes and construction of only 30 new homes, while another section promises permanent shelters of 50 sq m for all 62 households, without specifying location. The Tribal Council points out that only 13 pre‑tsunami villages are listed, whereas Nicobarese historically inhabited many more villages along the west coast. Community leaders allege the administration falsely certified that their rights under the Forest Rights Act have been settled, although no formal process was undertaken. The draft cites compliance with the 2013 RFCTLARR Act and the 1956 Protection of Aboriginal Tribes Act , but makes no mention of the Forest Rights Act . UPSC Relevance Illustrates the clash between large‑scale strategic infrastructure (defence, trade) and tribal rights, a recurring theme in GS2 (Polity) and GS3 (Economy). Highlights procedural safeguards under the Forest Rights Act and the 2013 RFCTLARR Act , useful for answer writing on land acquisition and tribal welfare. Shows the role of the judiciary, especially the Calcutta High Court , in enforcing consent provisions under the Forest Rights Act . Provides a case study for governance challenges in remote Union Territories, relevant for GS1 (Geography) and GS2 (Polity). Way Forward Clear demarcation of project boundaries and relocation sites, with maps in local languages, to ensure informed tribal consent. Formal initiation of the Forest Rights Act verification process, involving Gram Sabhas and independent observers. Transparent budgeting that specifies the number and location of new houses, aligning with the 2013 RFCTLARR Act provisions. Regular monitoring by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and the National Human Rights Commission to safeguard tribal rights and prevent project‑related displacement.