Centre moves Supreme Court to stay hearings on Great Nicobar project

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

Supreme Court of India. File | Photo Credit: Deepika Rajesh

The Union government has approached the Supreme Court to stay further proceedings in the petitions pending final hearing before the Calcutta High Court, which allege that provisions of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) were violated in obtaining consent for its ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project.

On May 6, 2026, the High Court overruled the Centre’s preliminary objections to the petitions. The Centre had argued that Meena Gupta, the petitioner, had no locus standi to approach the court. The Bench of then Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen had dismissed this argument and had cleared the way for a final hearing.

In a special leave petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, the Union government, through the Ministry of Environment, Forests, and Climate Change, has sought a stay on the High Court order and the pending proceedings. The Centre has reiterated that Ms. Gupta had no locus standi, saying the challenges to the project filed before the High Court were an abuse of process and that the government was duty-bound to ensure that the country’s growth is not stopped by claims of private individuals, The Hindu has learnt.

While Supreme Court records showed that the SLP was filed on July 24, the High Court records revealed that, as of September 24, the Centre had consented to the matters being posted for final hearing on November 25 and 26.

Ms. Gupta, a retired IAS officer, had served as Secretary in both the Environment and Tribal Affairs Ministries. In May, the High Court noted that the petitioner had “sufficient interest in the matter” and was “espousing the cause of the vulnerable tribal community”. It said she was involved in drafting the Bill that eventually became the FRA.

On the Centre’s arguments about the project’s national importance and cost, the court ruled, “So far, argument regarding the cost and importance of project is concerned, at this stage we are not inclined to enter into the merits of the case. 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.”

Over the past two years, Ms. Gupta has filed several petitions challenging the Gram Sabha resolutions consenting to the diversion of forest land for the project under the FRA, the constitution of a sub-divisional level committee under the same law, and the notifications reducing the buffer zones for both the Campbell Bay and Galathea Bay National Parks.

The petitions question the validity of a certificate issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration claiming that all rights under the FRA have been identified and settled.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.