3 hrs ago
Supreme Court Rejects Centre's Plea Over Great Nicobar Petitions
The Supreme Court has allowed a court case about the Great Nicobar project to continue.
The case will be heard by the Calcutta High Court on November 25 and 26.
The government had asked the Supreme Court to question whether the petitions could be brought by Meena Gupta, who lives in Hyderabad.
The High Court had said that people can bring public-interest cases for communities that may struggle to approach a court.
The petitions raise concerns about forests, wildlife, coastal areas and the rights of indigenous communities.
A Supreme Court judge also raised the importance of protecting indigenous identity and culture.
The project includes a port, an airport, a power plant and a township.
The Congress welcomed the ruling, while the NGT had earlier allowed the project to proceed with environmental conditions.
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Calcutta High Court proceedings challenging the Great Nicobar project.
The High Court is scheduled to hear the main case and other pending petitions on November 25–26.
The Centre disputed the petitions’ maintainability, arguing petitioner Meena Gupta lacked standing because she lives in Hyderabad.
The petitions raise alleged Forest Rights Act violations, environmental concerns and questions about indigenous communities’ rights and cultural identity.
The Congress welcomed the ruling, while the NGT had earlier allowed the project to proceed subject to environmental-clearance conditions.
- Who
- The Supreme Court, the Centre, petitioner Meena Gupta, petitioners and an impleaded tribal council are involved; the Congress welcomed the ruling.
- What
- The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Calcutta High Court’s handling of petitions challenging the Great Nicobar project.
- Where
- The proceedings are before the Calcutta High Court and concern the Great Nicobar project in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
- When
- The Supreme Court ruled on Monday; the High Court hearing is scheduled for November 25–26. The High Court upheld maintainability on May 6.
- Why
- The petitions allege Forest Rights Act violations and raise environmental, statutory and indigenous-community concerns; the Centre challenged whether the petitions were maintainable.
Petitioners and project critics
Centre and project position
Petition maintainability
Petitioners and project critics
The High Court held that a member of the public could bring a genuine public-interest case concerning vulnerable communities, even if not directly affected.
Centre and project position
The Centre argued that Meena Gupta, a Hyderabad resident, lacked locus standi and a direct cause of action in the islands.
Environmental and tribal concerns
Petitioners and project critics
Petitions allege Forest Rights Act violations and raise concerns about forests, coral reefs, mangroves, wildlife, coastal rules and impacts on indigenous communities.
Centre and project position
The Centre noted that environmental clearance had already been challenged before the NGT and raised concern about multiple proceedings; the NGT allowed the project to proceed subject to environmental conditions.
Project scrutiny and purpose
Petitioners and project critics
The High Court held that national importance and large expenditure do not place the project beyond judicial review; the Congress described the project as a potential ecological disaster.
Centre and project position
The project is presented as a strategic infrastructure initiative intended to strengthen connectivity and economic activity.
Key facts
- Project cost
- ₹92,000 crore
- Scheduled High Court hearing
- November 25–26
- Petitioner named in the maintainability challenge
- Meena Gupta, a retired IAS officer residing in Hyderabad
- Planned container terminal
- 14.2 million twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU)
- Planned airport
- Capacity of 4,000 peak-hour passengers
- Other planned facilities
- A 450 MVA gas-solar power plant and a township
- Earlier NGT decision
- Cleared the way for the project subject to strict compliance with environmental-clearance conditions
Quotes
Supreme Court bench
The bench that dismissed the Centre’s plea.
“This is to be welcomed. Now the matter will be taken up as originally scheduled in the Calcutta High Court on November 25-26. The flame of hope for ecological wisdom still flickers.”
theprint.in
“Let the high court take necessary steps to complete pleadings in the other matters and make an endeavour to hear all the matters on the date fixed.”
deccanchronicle.com
Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Supreme Court justice on the bench hearing the Centre’s plea.
“Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right.”
deccanchronicle.com
Sources
Related news
Congress Challenges Centre's Supreme Court Plea on Great Nicobar Project
Uttarakhand High Court Rejects Early Challenge to Proposed Haldwani Shift
Ramesh Says Modi Government Weakened India’s Green Tribunal
NGT Seeks Environmental Details From Telangana Over Musi Project
Record Leatherback Turtle Nests Confirmed at Great Nicobar Project Site
Supreme Court Says It Never Approved Modified Form 6
Rahul Gandhi Says Election Chief Will Be Held Accountable
Rahul Gandhi Says Gyanesh Kumar Changed Form 6 Illegally
Supreme Court Says It Did Not Change Voter Form 6
Supreme Court Gives Rajpal Yadav 24 Hours to Pay
