Supreme Court Refuses to Stay Great Nicobar Island Project Proceedings

The Supreme Court on Monday refused a Union government plea to stay ongoing proceedings in the Calcutta High Court regarding the controversial Great Nicobar Island Project. In its decision, the apex court underscored the principle that "preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right," according to a report by thehindu.com. This ruling came as a three-judge Bench, led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, urged the Calcutta High Court to proceed with the case and resolve the pertinent issues without delay.

The legal challenge against the ambitious project was initiated through a petition filed by former Union Environment Secretary Meena Gupta.

Project Details and Legal Arguments

Representing the Centre, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati presented arguments highlighting the project's significance. They asserted that the Great Nicobar Island Project, estimated to be worth over ₹ 72,000 crore and planned to include a container terminal, is of "immense" national importance and strategic value for the country. Mr. Venkataramani also contended that the indigenous tribal population, such as the endangered Shompen tribe residing on Great Nicobar Island, would experience "no loss of habitation" due to the project, thehindu.com reported.

Countering the Union's arguments, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a member of the Bench alongside Justice V. Mohana, made a significant oral observation. He stated, "Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. When you are talking about tribe cultures in Nicobar ecology. Tribe culture requires constitutional protection." This statement underscored the court's view on the importance of protecting indigenous ways of life.

Ms. Bhati informed the Supreme Court that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had previously disposed of apprehensions regarding the project on two occasions. The NGT had cleared the environmental clearance for the project, subject to certain conditions and the formation of a High Powered Committee to re-examine specific ecological impacts. She added that a review against the environmental clearance was subsequently rejected by the NGT in April 2023.

Background of the Challenge

Despite the National Green Tribunal's previous rulings, the Calcutta High Court had accepted and entertained writ petitions filed by Ms. Gupta. These petitions specifically highlight severe environmental threats that the Great Nicobar Island Project may allegedly cause to the region's fragile ecosystem. In May, the High Court had already dismissed preliminary objections raised by the Union government concerning Ms. Gupta’s locus standi, which had argued that she lacked standing as she was not a local resident, according to thehindu.com.

The core of the High Court petitions revolves around allegations that the project involves the diversion of over 130 sq. km of pristine tropical forest. This diversion, the petitions contend, constitutes a violation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and poses a direct threat to the unique way of life and distinct culture of both the Shompen and Nicobarese communities inhabiting the island.

Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, appearing for Ms. Gupta, argued that the Union government's contention regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court has become academic. This is because tribal councils have already been formally impleaded in the case. While Mr. Venkataramani asserted that the tribes were integrated and did not fall into a protected category, Mr. Muralidhar interjected to clarify a crucial point: the Shompen are specifically classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, highlighting their unique status and need for protection.

Supreme Court's Directive

The Supreme Court Bench advised that the Union government has the option to present the National Green Tribunal's previous decisions, along with any persuasive value they may hold, before the Calcutta High Court during its proceedings. Attorney General Venkataramani, on behalf of the Centre, requested that the apex court at least permit the Union to continue arguing the question of maintainability before the High Court.

However, the Supreme Court Bench ultimately limited its directive. It specifically asked the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to ensure that the case, encompassing all related petitions, is decided without any undue delay.

Next Steps

Looking ahead, the Calcutta High Court has scheduled the case for further hearings on November 25 and November 26. These upcoming sessions are anticipated to delve into significant constitutional issues, particularly those centering on fundamental rights and the critical preservation of the tribal communities' unique way of life, as reported by thehindu.com.