CHANDIGARH, India, September 13, 2025 — Months before the Tribal Affairs Ministry formally requested a report on alleged forest rights violations concerning the massive Great Nicobar Islands development project, it had already signaled to the Calcutta High Court that it shouldn’t be involved in a petition challenging the project’s clearances on those very grounds. This complex legal dance unfolds as the ₹81,000-crore infrastructure project faces scrutiny.
A tug-of-war is playing out in court over the Great Nicobar Islands project, with the Tribal Affairs Ministry seeking to distance itself from a case questioning forest rights compliance.
- The Tribal Affairs Ministry asked the Andaman and Nicobar administration for a report on forest rights violations for the Great Nicobar project.
- Months prior, the Ministry had asked the Calcutta High Court to remove it as a respondent in a petition questioning the project’s forest clearance.
- The project’s development requires diverting approximately 13,000 hectares of forest land.
- Petitions argue that consent from indigenous tribes was improperly obtained, violating the Forest Rights Act of 2006.
What exactly is the government asking for regarding the Great Nicobar project’s forest rights? The Tribal Affairs Ministry is seeking a factual report from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands (AN&I) administration regarding a complaint alleging that processes under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 were not even initiated in Nicobar. This comes despite a Deputy Commissioner of Nicobar certifying in August 2022 that all rights under the FRA had been identified, settled, and consent obtained for diverting forest land. The High Court is currently hearing several petitions that challenge the forest clearance granted for the expansive development and infrastructure project. These petitions, initiated by former bureaucrat Meena Gupta, contend that critical provisions of the FRA were disregarded during the process of obtaining consent from the local tribespeople for the diversion of roughly 13,000 hectares of forest land.
### A Conflicting Legal Stance The situation highlights a stark contrast in the government’s approach. While the Tribal Affairs Ministry, the designated nodal body for the FRA, has recently requested a report on the alleged violations, earlier filings between January and February this year saw the Union Environment Ministry, Tribal Affairs Ministry, and the AN&I administration submitting affidavits to the High Court. In these earlier pleadings, the Environment Ministry stated it was still awaiting a compliance report from the AN&I administration concerning the 37 conditions set for the project’s Stage I clearance, one of which specifically addresses FRA compliance. Meanwhile, the AN&I administration has mounted a defense, asserting that all FRA procedures were meticulously followed. They’ve accused the petitioner of presenting a “private interest litigation” disguised as a public interest plea, while emphasizing the project’s “great strategic, geopolitical, and economic significance” and its potential to bolster India’s influence in the Indian Ocean.
### Ministry’s Plea to Exit the Case In a significant move, the Tribal Affairs Ministry requested to be “removed from the list of respondents.” Their argument hinges on the principle that the implementation of the FRA rests with individual states and union territories. In an affidavit dated February 19, the Ministry formally denied and disputed the petition’s assertions, citing various FRA provisions and reserving its right for further submissions. Interestingly, regarding a No Objection Certificate (NOC) issued by the Ministry in 2020 that mandated FRA compliance, it stated this NOC was “given on the basis of facts provided by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration in the denotification proposal.” This statement preceded their request to be dropped as a respondent. This legal maneuvering occurs even as Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram stated in 2024 that his ministry would indeed investigate the clearances for the project. Earlier this year, Oram had indicated at a public forum that the ministry was actively looking into the concerns raised about the Great Nicobar development. ### Doubts Over Compliance Certificates The core of the petition challenges the AN&I administration’s claims of FRA compliance. This includes a certificate issued on August 18, 2022, which declared all FRA compliance complete. The formation of the Sub-Divisional Level Committee and the proceedings of Gram Sabha meetings that culminated in this certificate are also under scrutiny. The Tribal Council for Little and Great Nicobar, in its complaint, labeled this certificate a “false” representation, asserting that the process for recognizing and vesting rights under the FRA hadn’t even begun in Nicobar. In contrast to the Tribal Council’s allegations, the Environment Ministry’s High Court submissions have not directly addressed this specific certificate. They have, however, pointed out that land is a state subject and reiterated that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal body for the FRA, 2006. An affidavit filed on January 14 asserted that the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, do not override any part of the FRA. The Ministry also stated that Stage 1 clearance for the project was granted in October 2022, contingent on the AN&I administration fulfilling 37 specific conditions before final Stage II approval. FRA compliance was among these conditions. However, without specifying which conditions remain unmet, the Ministry added, “So far, the compliance of Stage I is not received from the State government… proposal will be considered for final approval as and when satisfactory compliance of Stage I approval will be received from the State government.” ### Representation Concerns and Lack of Records Beyond the claim that the FRA process was never initiated, the Tribal Council argues that Nicobarese people were not represented in the August 2022 Gram Sabha meetings where consent for land diversion was supposedly given. They further contend that the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group, could not have been represented by an administrative officer. Adding to these concerns, responses to Right to Information (RTI) requests filed by activists over the past year reveal that the Gram Panchayats of Laxminagar, Campbell Bay, and Gandhi Nagar have “no records” of individuals who attended the Gram Sabha meetings where consent for diversion was allegedly obtained, as stated in the administration’s August 2022 certificate. The petition before the High Court echoes the Tribal Council’s complaint, arguing that the FRA provides no mechanism for forest dwellers to be represented by others in Gram Sabha meetings, unlike the Shompen’s alleged representation. The AN&I administration counters this by citing India’s official policy on “Aboriginal Tribes” as justification. The case has garnered significant attention, with the Additional Solicitor General informing the Bench that the Attorney General of India will argue the matter due to its “very high stakes” and the project’s “utmost importance.” Public records from the High Court indicate the last order was issued on April 10, with the next hearing scheduled for May 15. The case has not been heard since then.
