{"id":2443,"date":"2026-10-05T08:31:54","date_gmt":"2026-10-05T08:31:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/2026\/10\/05\/supreme-court-declines-review-great-nicobar-pil\/"},"modified":"2026-10-05T08:31:54","modified_gmt":"2026-10-05T08:31:54","slug":"supreme-court-declines-review-great-nicobar-pil","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/2026\/10\/05\/supreme-court-declines-review-great-nicobar-pil\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Declines to Review Calcutta High Court Ruling on Great Nicobar PIL"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<!-- Quick Adsense WordPress Plugin: http:\/\/quickadsense.com\/ -->\n<div class=\"9fece8afa224fd09e54b043d0febfb58\" data-index=\"1\" style=\"float: none; margin:10px 0 10px 0; text-align:center;\">\n<script async src=\"https:\/\/pagead2.googlesyndication.com\/pagead\/js\/adsbygoogle.js\"><\/script>\r\n<!-- NR ATF -->\r\n<ins class=\"adsbygoogle\"\r\n     style=\"display:block\"\r\n     data-ad-client=\"ca-pub-8898941184964366\"\r\n     data-ad-slot=\"4839033563\"\r\n     data-ad-format=\"auto\"\r\n     data-full-width-responsive=\"true\"><\/ins>\r\n<script>\r\n     (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});\r\n<\/script>\n<\/div>\n<p>The Supreme Court today turned down the Union of India&#8217;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\u2011procurement process for the Great Nicobar Island mega\u2011infrastructure project.<\/p>\n<h2>Bench composition and procedural stance<\/h2>\n<p>A three\u2011judge 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\u202f25\u201126, the Supreme Court declined to interfere, urging the Calcutta High Court to proceed with the matter on the dates already fixed.<\/p>\n<h2>Union\u2019s arguments and concerns<\/h2>\n<p>Attorney General for India R.\u202fVenkataramani argued that the issue is of \u201cgreat national importance\u201d 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. \u201cSomebody 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,\u201d the Attorney General said, emphasizing the procedural complexity.<\/p>\n<p>Venkataramani urged the Court to keep the door open for the Union to make further submissions, stating, \u201cI just want to keep the door open.\u201d Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati also referenced the pending NGT proceedings concerning the project&#8217;s environmental clearance, reinforcing the Union\u2019s position that the matter is already before another specialised forum.<\/p>\n<h2>Petitioner\u2019s stance and judicial observations<\/h2>\n<p>Senior Advocate Dr.\u202fS.\u202fMuralidhar, 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.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019s 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. \u201cPreservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right,\u201d he remarked.<\/p>\n<p>The Attorney General responded that the Union\u2019s 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\u2019s approach.<\/p>\n<h2>Direction to the Calcutta High Court<\/h2>\n<p>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\u202f25\u201126 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.<\/p>\n<h2>Background of the PIL and High Court\u2019s earlier ruling<\/h2>\n<p>On May\u202f6, 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\u2011sensitive buffer zones around national parks were reduced in connection with the Great Nicobar development.<\/p>\n<p>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 &#038; Nicobar Islands. The High Court, however, rejected a \u201cthumb rule\u201d 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\u202f56, 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.<\/p>\n<p>The Union further contended that the project, estimated at \u20b972,000\u202fcrores 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.<\/p>\n<p>In response, the petitioner highlighted her long\u2011standing 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 \u201cPrimitive Tribal Groups\u201d as \u201cParticularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups.\u201d She also noted having spent part of her childhood in the Islands and closely followed tribal\u2011rights issues in Great Nicobar.<\/p>\n<p>The High Court referred extensively to Supreme Court precedents on PIL jurisprudence, such as People\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n<p>Rejecting the Government\u2019s reliance on an earlier Calcutta High Court order dismissing a PIL against West Bengal\u2019s 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\u2019s massive expenditure or national importance does not render it immune from judicial review, stating, \u201cA 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2>Proceedings before the Supreme Court<\/h2>\n<p>Aggrieved by the High Court\u2019s decision, the Union approached the Supreme Court, filing Union of India v. Meena Gupta (Diary No.\u202f44246\u20112026). The Supreme Court\u2019s refusal to entertain the Union\u2019s challenge effectively leaves the High Court\u2019s maintainability order intact and signals that the matter will be examined on its merits during the upcoming November hearings.<\/p>\n\n<div style=\"font-size: 0px; height: 0px; line-height: 0px; margin: 0; padding: 0; clear: both;\"><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court refused to entertain the Union&#8217;s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order that upheld a public interest litigation alleging Forest Rights Act violations in the Great Nicobar mega\u2011project.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":2444,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[299],"tags":[2682,2680,2681,335,2683],"class_list":["post-2443","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-forest-rights-act","tag-great-nicobar","tag-public-interest-litigation","tag-supreme-court","tag-tribal-rights","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2443","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2443"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2443\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2444"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2443"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2443"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsraise.com\/in\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2443"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}