The Supreme Court today turned down the Union of India’s request to intervene in a Calcutta High Court order that had affirmed the maintainability of a public interest litigation (PIL). The PIL challenges alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act in the consent‑procurement process for the Great Nicobar Island mega‑infrastructure project.
Bench composition and procedural stance
A three‑judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter. Noting that the High Court case is scheduled for a hearing on November 25‑26, the Supreme Court declined to interfere, urging the Calcutta High Court to proceed with the matter on the dates already fixed.
Union’s arguments and concerns
Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani argued that the issue is of “great national importance” and questioned whether the PIL should be entertained at all. He highlighted that the environmental clearance for the Great Nicobar project has already been contested before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) and warned that multiple proceedings were being launched subsequently. “Somebody comes and files a petition years later, and then three different petitions try to challenge it in three different ways. Then they say the tribals are affected and they are not before the Court. Now they have got impleaded,” the Attorney General said, emphasizing the procedural complexity.
Venkataramani urged the Court to keep the door open for the Union to make further submissions, stating, “I just want to keep the door open.” Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati also referenced the pending NGT proceedings concerning the project’s environmental clearance, reinforcing the Union’s position that the matter is already before another specialised forum.
Petitioner’s stance and judicial observations
Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, representing petitioner Meena Gupta, contended that the case concerns Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG) and therefore the PIL is maintainable. He noted that the Tribal Council had filed an application for impleadment, suggesting that the question of public interest might become academic.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that, because a decision on maintainability already exists, the Court could keep open the broader questions of public interest and the petition’s scope. He then raised constitutional considerations, asking whether indigenous communities such as the Great Andamanese and the Shompen tribe should retain their distinct identities or become fully integrated into the mainstream. “Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right,” he remarked.
The Attorney General responded that the Union’s submissions were not aimed at vulnerable tribes per se, but at people who have already integrated with the mainstream, indicating a nuanced distinction in the Union’s approach.
Direction to the Calcutta High Court
Chief Justice Surya Kant instructed that the Calcutta High Court take up the matter at the earliest. The Supreme Court recorded that the lead case before the High Court is slated for hearing on November 25‑26 and ordered the court to complete pleadings in the related matters and endeavour to hear them on the fixed dates. Both parties assured full cooperation with the proceedings.
Background of the PIL and High Court’s earlier ruling
On May 6, the Calcutta High Court upheld the maintainability of several PILs filed by Meena Gupta, a retired Indian Administrative Service officer. The petitions allege violations of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and claim that eco‑sensitive buffer zones around national parks were reduced in connection with the Great Nicobar development.
The Union challenged the PILs on the ground of locus standi, arguing that the petitioner, a resident of Hyderabad, lacks a direct connection to the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The High Court, however, rejected a “thumb rule” for locus standi in PILs, emphasizing that courts must allow genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities to be raised even by persons not directly affected. Citing Rule 56, the court held that any member of the public may approach the court when a class of persons is unable to do so because of poverty, helplessness, disability or social disadvantage.
The Union further contended that the project, estimated at ₹72,000 crores and encompassing a port, airport, power station and defence facilities, is of strategic national importance and that sovereign rights to execute such projects should prevail. It also pointed out that the tribal communities for whose benefit the PILs were filed were not parties before the court.
In response, the petitioner highlighted her long‑standing involvement with tribal welfare, including service as Secretary of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, participation in finalising the Forest Rights Bill, and contribution to renaming “Primitive Tribal Groups” as “Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups.” She also noted having spent part of her childhood in the Islands and closely followed tribal‑rights issues in Great Nicobar.
The High Court referred extensively to Supreme Court precedents on PIL jurisprudence, such as People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, underscoring that PILs exist to secure justice for disadvantaged communities unable to approach courts themselves. It observed that the tribal population in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands constitutes a very vulnerable group, ordinarily inaccessible to ordinary citizens.
Rejecting the Government’s reliance on an earlier Calcutta High Court order dismissing a PIL against West Bengal’s sand policy, the court emphasized that the present petitioner demonstrated a substantial and longstanding connection with the subject matter, precluding a mechanical application of the earlier judgment. It further held that a project’s massive expenditure or national importance does not render it immune from judicial review, stating, “A project involving huge expenditure must proceed in accordance with governing laws holding the field and it is not beyond the scope of judicial review on permissible parameters.”
Proceedings before the Supreme Court
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the Union approached the Supreme Court, filing Union of India v. Meena Gupta (Diary No. 44246‑2026). The Supreme Court’s refusal to entertain the Union’s challenge effectively leaves the High Court’s maintainability order intact and signals that the matter will be examined on its merits during the upcoming November hearings.
Be First to Comment