On October 5, 2026, the Supreme Court of India rejected the Centre's plea challenging the Calcutta High Court's order that upheld the maintainability of Public Interest Litigations concerning the great nicobar island project. A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana refused to entertain the Union's challenge and directed the Calcutta High Court to proceed with all pending petitions on the dates already scheduled for hearing: November 25 and 26.
The government had questioned the maintainability of the PILs, arguing that environmental clearance for the project had already been challenged before the National Green Tribunal and that the petitioner lacked standing to bring the matter. The apex court found these objections insufficient to halt the proceedings.
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi made an oral observation that proved central to the court's reasoning. He stated that the preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, specifically referencing the unique identity of the Shompen tribe. This observation showed the court's view that cultural preservation claims merit serious judicial consideration and cannot be summarily dismissed as unmaintainable.
Petitions Challenge Forest Rights Compliance
The PILs challenging the great nicobar island project allege violations of the Forest Rights Act in obtaining consent for the development. Former Union Environment Secretary Meena Gupta filed one of the principal petitions, contending that the project poses a threat to the fragile ecosystem of Great Nicobar Island and violates the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The petitioner's background as a former senior government official lends particular weight to the environmental and legal concerns being raised.
The Forest Rights Act, 2006, grants rights to forest-dwelling scheduled tribes and other traditional forest dwellers over forest land and resources. The Act requires free and informed consent from affected communities before projects affecting forest land proceed. The petitions suggest that this statutory requirement was not properly satisfied in relation to the great nicobar island project.
The Centre's Failed Arguments
The Union government's challenge to maintainability rested on two main grounds. First, it argued that because environmental clearance for the project had already been challenged before the National Green Tribunal, the High Court should not entertain parallel litigation. Second, the Centre contended that the petitioner lacked locus standi—the legal standing to bring the case.
The Supreme Court 0f India found neither argument persuasive. The bench's refusal to entertain these objections signals that environmental and cultural protection claims arising from large infrastructure projects will not be easily dismissed on technical grounds. The court's approach suggests that when fundamental rights—particularly cultural preservation—are at stake, Indian courts will maintain jurisdiction to hear the merits.
Constitutional Protection for Indigenous Cultures
Justice Bagchi's oral remark about the constitutional protection of cultural preservation is significant. The Indian Constitution does not explicitly list culture as a fundamental right in Part III. However, Indian courts have repeatedly interpreted the Constitution's fundamental rights provisions expansively, reading cultural and linguistic rights into the right to life, the right to equality, and freedom of religion.
The reference to the Shompen tribe is particularly meaningful. The Shompen are an indigenous group inhabiting Great Nicobar Island, with a distinct language, social structure, and way of life adapted to the island's unique environment. Large-scale infrastructure development on the island inevitably affects their cultural practices, land use patterns, and traditional livelihoods. By emphasizing that preservation of culture is constitutionally protected, Justice Bagchi indicated that the courts will examine whether the project adequately protects indigenous cultural interests.
This reasoning aligns with India's constitutional commitment to protecting the rights of scheduled tribes and other marginalized communities. Articles 15, 16, 17, and 46 of the Constitution specifically address protection of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. While the Shompen may not fall neatly into these categories, the spirit of constitutional protection extends to indigenous peoples whose cultural survival is threatened by state-sponsored or state-approved projects.
High Court to Examine Compliance
The Supreme Court's order directing the Calcutta High Court to proceed with hearings on November 25 and 26 sets a clear timeline for substantive consideration of the petitions. By refusing to stay the proceedings and rejecting the Centre's challenge, the court has effectively cleared the path for the High Court to examine the merits of the allegations.
The High Court will now need to examine whether the Forest Rights Act was properly complied with, whether environmental clearance was obtained through proper procedures, and whether the cultural and ecological concerns raised by the petitioners have been adequately addressed. The bench also urged the Calcutta High Court to expedite the hearing and decision on the issues raised. This instruction reflects the court's view that the matter warrants prompt attention.
What This Means for Future Projects
The court's decision has implications beyond the specific great nicobar island project. It establishes that government infrastructure projects cannot easily avoid judicial scrutiny by challenging the maintainability of petitions filed by those claiming injury. When questions of environmental damage and cultural preservation are raised, courts will insist on examining the substance of these claims.
The decision also reaffirms that even when a matter has been filed before one tribunal or court, parallel litigation in another forum may be permissible if different legal questions are at stake. The National Green Tribunal might focus on environmental impact assessment procedures, while the High Court examines compliance with the Forest Rights Act and constitutional protections for indigenous peoples.
For project developers and government agencies, the ruling makes clear that obtaining environmental clearance alone is not sufficient to insulate a project from legal challenge. Compliance with laws protecting forest-dwelling communities, consultation with affected tribes, and consideration of cultural impacts are separate legal requirements that courts will enforce. The hearings scheduled for late November will provide the first detailed judicial examination of whether the great nicobar island project has complied with India's legal framework for protecting forests, indigenous rights, and cultural preservation.
Comments
Sign in to read the discussion and share your thoughts.