Overview
On 5 October 2026, a three‑judge bench of the Supreme Court rejected the Union government’s request to halt proceedings in the Calcutta High Court. The case concerns a petition by former Union Environment Secretary Meena Gupta that challenges the Great Nicobar Island Project as a threat to the island’s fragile ecosystem and the rights of indigenous tribes under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
Key Developments
- The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, directed the Calcutta High Court to hear the case without delay.
- Union counsel Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati argued that the project, worth over ₹72,000 crore, is of “immense” national and strategic importance.
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi stressed that “preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right”.
- The National Green Tribunal had already cleared the project’s environmental clearance, subject to conditions and a High‑Powered Committee.
- The petition alleges diversion of more than 130 sq. km of pristine tropical forest, endangering the Shompen tribe and the broader Nicobarese tribes.
Important Facts
The High Court had earlier dismissed the Union’s objection to the petitioner’s locus standi, noting that local residence was not a prerequisite. Hearings on constitutional issues were scheduled for 25‑26 November 2026. Senior advocate S. Muralidhar argued that the tribal councils have already been impleaded, making the maintainability question academic.
Exam Relevance
This case touches upon several GS topics:
- GS2 (Polity): Role of the Supreme Court in safeguarding fundamental rights; interplay between Union and State courts.
- GS4 (Environment & Ecology): Application of the Forest Rights Act, 2006; role of the NGT in environmental clearances.
- GS3 (Economy): Strategic infrastructure projects in remote islands; cost‑benefit analysis of a ₹72,000 crore investment versus ecological costs.
- GS1 (Society): Protection of tribal cultures as a constitutional right.
Way Forward
The Calcutta High Court must now examine the petitions on their merits, balancing national security and economic imperatives against environmental sustainability and tribal rights. Aspirants should monitor the court’s judgment for insights into judicial interpretation of fundamental rights, the functioning of environmental tribunals, and the policy‑making process for large‑scale infrastructure in ecologically sensitive zones.