Great Nicobar Project: Supreme Court Lets the Calcutta High Court Hear Tribal Rights Petitions
The Supreme Court refused to stop the Calcutta High Court from hearing petitions against the Great Nicobar Island Development Project. The bench was led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana.
The Union government had challenged a Calcutta High Court order that held a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the project to be maintainable (fit to be heard). The Centre argued that the petitioner, a retired IAS officer living in Hyderabad, had no locus standi (right to bring the case) and that the project is of great national importance.
The petitions say that diverting over 130 sq km of pristine tropical forest for the project broke the Forest Rights Act, 2006 and threatens the way of life and culture of the Shompen and Nicobarese people.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that "preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right". The bench also noted that the two main tribal communities had not been heard so far; the Tribal Council has applied to be made a party.
The Calcutta High Court (which has jurisdiction over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands) will hear the case on 25-26 November 2026. The Supreme Court said it would request the High Court's Chief Justice to take it up early.
Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
A Public Interest Litigation, or PIL, is a case filed in court to protect the rights of the public or of a group of people, rather than the private rights of the person filing it. Normally, only the person who has been harmed can go to court. In a PIL, any public-spirited person or organisation can approach the court on behalf of people who are too poor, too weak or too unaware to do it themselves. In India, a PIL can be filed in the Supreme Court under Article 32 or in a High Court under Article 226.
The Centre's main objection was about locus standi: it argued that a retired officer living in Hyderabad had no right to file a case about the islands. The Calcutta High Court held that there is "no thumb rule" on locus standi in genuine public causes about vulnerable communities, and the Supreme Court declined to disturb that view. This is the core PIL principle at work: people who cannot easily reach the court, like the Shompen, can have their case raised by others.
Cultural and Educational Rights (Articles 29 and 30)
Cultural and educational rights are fundamental rights in Part III of the Constitution that protect the language, script and culture of different groups, and the right of minorities to run their own schools and colleges. Article 29 protects the right of any section of citizens to conserve its distinct language, script or culture. Article 30 gives religious and linguistic minorities the right to set up and manage their own educational institutions. Together they make sure that India's many communities can keep their identity while being equal citizens.
Justice Bagchi's remark that "preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right" points directly to Article 29(1). The Shompen and Great Nicobarese have their own languages and ways of life, so they are a "section of citizens" whose culture the Constitution protects. The High Court will now have to weigh this right against a project the Centre calls nationally important.
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 aims to turn the island into a hub for shipping, air travel and tourism, close to one of the world's busiest sea routes near the Strait of Malacca. It has been controversial because it needs a large area of rainforest and affects the island's tribal communities.
The Supreme Court's refusal to interfere means the challenge to the project's forest clearance on tribal-rights grounds will now be heard on its merits in the Calcutta High Court. The case will decide whether the legal steps needed before diverting this forest were properly followed.
Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006
The Forest Rights Act, 2006 (formally the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act) gives legal recognition to the rights of tribal people and other forest dwellers over the forest land and resources they have depended on for generations. It covers individual rights, such as land being farmed, and community rights, such as grazing, fishing and managing community forests. It places the Gram Sabha (the village assembly) at the centre of the process.
The petitions argue that forest rights on Great Nicobar were never properly recognised and settled before the forest was diverted, as the FRA requires. Since the Shompen are a PVTG, their habitat rights under the Act are at the heart of the case.
- Supreme Court bench: CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Justice V. Mohana
- The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Calcutta High Court's ruling that the PIL is maintainable
- Calcutta High Court hearing: 25-26 November 2026
- Forest diversion challenged: over 130 sq km (Stage-I clearance for 130.75 sq km)
- Project cost: about ₹72,000 crore (transhipment port, airport, power plant, township)
- Tribal communities concerned: Shompen (PVTG) and Great Nicobarese
- Laws invoked: Forest Rights Act, 2006; Article 29(1) (right to conserve culture)
- Calcutta High Court has jurisdiction over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands