On October 5, 2026, the Supreme High Court of India declined to stay proceedings before the Calcutta High Court challenging the Great Nicobar Island Project and directed the lower court to expedite its hearing and decision on the matter. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and including Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, rejected the Union government's attempt to halt the litigation and instead instructed the Calcutta High Court to proceed with all pending petitions on the dates already fixed for hearing on November 25 and 26.
The bench's refusal to grant a stay, coupled with its emphasis on constitutional protections for cultural preservation, signals the court's willingness to allow substantive examination of the project's compliance with environmental and tribal rights laws.
Centre's Plea Dismissed
The Union government had challenged the Calcutta High Court's order upholding the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations (PILs) filed against the Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project. The Centre argued that the environmental clearance had already been challenged before the National Green Tribunal and that the petitioners lacked standing to sue. The Supreme Court of India display board would have shown this matter among dozens of cases on its docket, yet the apex court afforded it priority treatment.
The bench dismissed the Union's maintainability challenge without hesitation. In doing so, it cleared the path for the Calcutta High Court to examine the substance of allegations that the project violates the Forest Rights Act, 2006, in obtaining necessary consent for its implementation. This procedural victory for the petitioners does not decide the merits of their claims but ensures those claims will receive a full hearing.
Constitutional Right to Cultural Preservation
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi made an oral observation that proved central to the bench's reasoning. He stated that the preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, specifically referencing the unique identity and heritage of the Shompen tribe, an indigenous community native to Great Nicobar Island.
This articulation carries weight in Indian constitutional law. While the Indian Constitution does not explicitly enumerate a standalone right to cultural preservation, courts have long derived such protections from Article 29, which safeguards the rights of minorities to conserve their distinct language, script, or culture. The Supreme Court of India has consistently applied this principle to cases involving indigenous communities and their traditional lands.
The Shompen are among the most isolated tribal groups in India, with a population numbering only a few hundred. Their way of life depends on the island's forests and natural systems. A project that fundamentally alters the island's ecosystem would necessarily impact their cultural continuity and traditional practices passed down through generations.
Allegations Against the Project
The petitions challenging the Great Nicobar Island Project were filed by former Union Environment Secretary Meena Gupta, among others. These petitions contend that the project poses a substantial threat to the fragile ecosystem of Great Nicobar Island and violates provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
The Forest Rights Act recognises and protects the rights of forest-dwelling tribes and other traditional forest dwellers to use forest land and resources. The act requires that consent be obtained from gram sabhas (village assemblies) and that due process be followed before forest land is diverted for non-forest purposes. The petitioners allege that these procedural and substantive requirements were not met in clearing the Great Nicobar Island Project.
The project itself represents a significant infrastructure undertaking involving port development, airport construction, and township creation on the island. Such large-scale development would necessarily require clearing substantial forest cover and altering the natural landscape. The ecological consequences would extend beyond the immediate construction footprint, affecting water systems, wildlife corridors, and the overall biodiversity of the island.
What the Calcutta High Court Will Examine
With the Supreme Court of India's refusal to grant a stay, the Calcutta High Court now faces the task of examining whether the project's clearance process complied with the Forest Rights Act and other applicable environmental laws. The court will need to scrutinise whether proper consultation occurred with the Shompen tribe and whether their consent was genuinely obtained or merely assumed.
The court will also examine whether the environmental impact assessment adequately addressed the project's effects on the island's unique ecosystem. Great Nicobar Island is geographically isolated and ecologically distinct, with species found nowhere else in India. Any major development carries the risk of irreversible ecological damage.
Further, the court may need to weigh the project's claimed economic and developmental benefits against the constitutional imperative to protect the cultural and environmental rights of indigenous communities. This balance is not straightforward. Development and conservation frequently pull in opposite directions, and courts must apply constitutional principles to resolve such tensions.
Timeline for Resolution
The bench set November 25 and 26 for the Calcutta High Court's hearing on the substantive issues. This timeline gives the parties roughly seven weeks to prepare their arguments and supporting materials. Both the Union government and the petitioners will likely file detailed written submissions before those dates, setting out their legal and factual positions.
The Calcutta High Court will then need to decide the case on its merits. The court may uphold the project's clearance, quash it entirely, or impose conditions and modifications to address the identified concerns. Any decision by the Calcutta High Court is likely to be challenged in the Supreme Court of India, meaning this litigation could extend further before reaching final resolution.
The October 5 order indicates that the bench views this matter as worthy of careful consideration rather than summary dismissal. The refusal to stay proceedings, combined with the direction to expedite, suggests the court believes the issues raised by the petitioners merit substantive examination. Whether that examination ultimately results in modifications to the project, its suspension, or its approval remains to be determined by the Calcutta High Court in the weeks ahead.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.