Centre asks Supreme Court to halt Calcutta HC hearings on Great Nicobar, disputing petitioner’s standing

The news

New Delhi. The Union government has filed a special leave petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court seeking a stay on proceedings in the Calcutta High Court, where petitions allege that the Forest Rights Act (FRA) was violated in obtaining consent for the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project, The Hindu reports. The Centre says the petitioner, retired IAS officer Meena Gupta, has no locus standi — the legal right to bring a case — and calls the petitions an “abuse of process”. On May 6 a Bench of then Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen rejected that objection, holding she had “sufficient interest”. The petitions challenge gram sabha consent resolutions, reduced buffer zones for Campbell Bay and Galathea Bay National Parks, and a certificate that all FRA rights were settled. The SLP, filed July 24, is tentatively listed for October 5.

Static syllabus linkage

1. The Forest Rights Act makes rights come before diversion. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 vests individual and community rights over forest land, and makes the gram sabha the authority that initiates their determination; claims then pass to sub-divisional and district level committees. Section 4(5) bars eviction of any forest dweller until recognition and verification of rights is complete.
2. Niyamgiri settled that gram sabhas decide on cultural and religious rights. In Orissa Mining Corporation v MoEF (2013), the Supreme Court held that whether bauxite mining in Niyamgiri would affect the religious and cultural rights of the Dongria Kondh, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, was for the gram sabhas to decide. Separately, S.P. Gupta v Union of India (1981) relaxed locus standi, letting public-spirited persons litigate for those unable to reach courts.

Why UPSC loves this

1. Tribal-area projects join GS3 and GS2. The GS3 syllabus lists “Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment”, and GS2 covers “mechanisms, laws, institutions and bodies constituted for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections”. Great Nicobar tests both in one answer.

Analysis

1. Lens — Development and environment: consent is a strategic project’s cheapest insurance. The Centre frames the case as growth against “claims of private individuals”, but the petition asks whether the law’s procedure was followed, not whether the port should exist. The Shompen, with almost no outside contact, are exactly whom the consent rule protects. A thoughtful officer would conclude that a transparent gram sabha process is faster than years of litigation, and that strategic value is a reason to do consent properly, not to skip it.
2. Attacking standing rather than the merits signals a weak record. Standing objections work against busybodies, but the petitioner was Secretary in both the Environment and Tribal Affairs Ministries and helped draft the FRA. By seeking to stop a final hearing it had agreed to hold on November 25 and 26, the Centre invites the inference that it prefers no scrutiny to an adverse verdict. The counter-view: serial litigation can stall national projects.
3. Niyamgiri’s return shows gram sabha verdicts are never quite final. Activists in Odisha now warn of a push to reopen Niyamgiri after Vedanta’s chairman said so, nearly 13 years after 12 Dongria Kondh gram sabhas said no. A refusal is re-asked again and again, while a consent once given is treated as permanent. That asymmetry is why the quality of the first consultation decides whether the FRA protects anyone.

Administrator's brainstorm