Great Nicobar Project: Supreme Court Lets Calcutta High Court Hear Forest Rights Challenge, Calls Culture a Fundamental Right
On 5 October 2026, the Supreme Court refused to stay the hearing of petitions in the Calcutta High Court against the Great Nicobar Island Development Project. The bench was Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana.
The Union government had challenged a Calcutta High Court order of 6 May 2026. That order held that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a retired IAS officer (a former Secretary of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs) could be heard, even though she does not live on the islands. The Supreme Court did not interfere with that order.
The petitions say that the diversion of over 130 sq km of tropical forest violated the Forest Rights Act, 2006, mainly in how the consent of local tribal communities was obtained, and that it threatens the way of life and culture of the Shompen and Nicobarese people.
During the hearing, the bench observed that "preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right", and asked whether the Shompen would be fully absorbed into the mainstream or allowed to keep their own identity.
The Supreme Court asked the High Court to hear the case on its fixed dates of 25 and 26 November 2026. The Union described the project, estimated at about ₹72,000 crore, as being of "great national importance" because it includes a port, an airport, a power station and defence facilities.
Great Nicobar Island Development Project
The Great Nicobar Island Development Project is a large infrastructure plan for Great Nicobar, the southernmost island of India in the Bay of Bengal. It plans to build a big container port, an international airport, a power plant and a new township on the island. Supporters see it as a way to turn India's farthest island into a major trade and security hub. Critics see it as a serious threat to a rare rainforest, to wildlife and to two tribal communities who live there.
The Supreme Court's refusal to stop the Calcutta High Court case means the High Court will now examine whether forest rights and tribal consent were properly respected before this forest was diverted. The court's remark that preservation of culture is a fundamental right puts the Shompen and Nicobarese way of life at the centre of the legal debate about this project.
Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006
The Forest Rights Act, 2006 gives legal recognition to the rights of tribal people and other traditional forest dwellers over the forest land they live on and the forest resources they depend on. Its full name is the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. The law says these communities were treated unfairly when forests were made government property, and it aims to correct this "historical injustice". It also makes the gram sabha the key body for deciding these rights.
The PIL in the Calcutta High Court argues that consent for the Great Nicobar project was not obtained the way the FRA requires. The Supreme Court has allowed that case to go ahead, so the High Court will test the project's forest diversion against this law.
Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs)
Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups are the most disadvantaged communities among India's Scheduled Tribes. They usually live in remote places, use very old technology (such as hunting and gathering), have very low literacy and a population that is small, stagnant or falling. The government created this category so that these groups get special, focused support. The Shompen of Great Nicobar are one such group.
The Supreme Court's remark that preserving culture is a fundamental right was made while discussing the Shompen, a PVTG of just a few hundred people. Their survival as a distinct community is one of the central questions the Calcutta High Court will now consider.
- Supreme Court order: 5 October 2026; bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V. Mohana
- Calcutta High Court order on PIL maintainability: 6 May 2026; next hearing dates: 25 and 26 November 2026
- Case: Union of India v. Meena Gupta and Others
- Forest at stake: over 130 sq km (about 130.75 sq km)
- Project cost cited by the Union: about ₹72,000 crore
- Shompen: PVTG, 229 people (Census 2011)
- Great Nicobar Biosphere Reserve: 1989; UNESCO MAB: 2013
- Article 29(1): right of any section of citizens to conserve its distinct language, script or culture
- FRA 2006: Section 3(1)(e) habitat rights for PVTGs; Section 4(5) no eviction until rights are recognised