Supreme Court refuses to stay Great Nicobar case: culture is “a constitutionally protected fundamental right”

The news

New Delhi, October 5. A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, on Monday refused the Centre’s plea, reported here on September 30, to stay Calcutta High Court proceedings on the Great Nicobar Island Project, and asked the High Court to decide on its fixed dates, November 25 and 26. Attorney-General R. Venkataramani called the project, worth ₹72,000–81,000 crore as variously reported, of “immense” strategic importance, said there was “no loss of habitation” for the Shompen, and argued the tribes were “integrated”. Justice Bagchi asked for “some degree of filtration” between state security and commercial interests: “Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right.” Petitioner Meena Gupta, a former Union Environment Secretary, alleges violation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006; her counsel said tribal councils have now been impleaded, that is, made parties.

Static syllabus linkage

1. Article 29(1) protects the culture of any section of citizens. Article 29(1) gives any section of citizens with a distinct language, script or culture the right to conserve it; its text is not limited to religious or linguistic minorities, so a tribe’s way of life falls within it. In the Niyamgiri case, Orissa Mining Corporation v. Ministry of Environment and Forests (2013), the Supreme Court left a mining decision to the affected gram sabhas.
2. The Shompen are a PVTG protected by a 1956 Regulation and the Forest Rights Act. The Shompen, about 237 hunter-gatherers per the PIB, are one of India’s 75 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups. The Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Protection of Aboriginal Tribes) Regulation, 1956, made by the President under Article 240, notifies tribal reserves and restricts outsiders’ entry. The Forest Rights Act, 2006 makes the gram sabha the authority that starts recognition of forest rights and bars eviction until recognition is complete.

Why UPSC loves this

1. One project tests two syllabus lines. GS3 lists “Conservation, environmental pollution and degradation, environmental impact assessment”; GS2 lists laws and bodies “for the protection and betterment of these vulnerable sections”. Great Nicobar is the live case for both.

Analysis

1. The Bench has moved the case from “who may sue” to “what is at stake”. The Centre fought for months on maintainability, saying a non-local could not speak for absent tribes. Once tribal councils were impleaded that objection lost force, so November will turn on consent, forest rights and culture. Counter-view: courts usually defer on strategic projects, and delay raises cost.
2. Lens — Development and environment: “strategic” cannot be a password that ends scrutiny. “Filtration” asks which parts serve defence and which are commercial. A 14.2 million TEU transshipment terminal and a township are mainly commercial. Up to 7.11 lakh trees may fall, per the PIB, while compensatory afforestation is in Haryana, which cannot replace island rainforest. A thoughtful officer would fast-track defence assets and give the commercial core full, time-bound scrutiny.
3. “Integrated” describes the past; it cannot replace consent about the future. The Attorney-General implies the tribes’ culture needs no special shield. Justice Bagchi’s counter-example, the Great Andamanese, did merge with the mainstream and survive as a very small community. Under Article 29(1), keeping a distinct identity is the people’s choice, not a status the State certifies.

Administrator's brainstorm