'Astonishing U-turn': Congress slams Centre for moving SC to 'stay hearings' on Great Nicobar project
One faint glimmer of hope is provided by the five different petitions filed by public-spirited citizens and civil society groups that are pending in the Calcutta High Court, the former Environment Minister said
360° Perspective Analysis
Deep-dive into Geography, Polity, Economy, History, Environment & Social dimensions — AI-powered, on-demand
Context
The Union government has petitioned the to stay ongoing proceedings in the regarding the ₹92,000-crore . Petitions pending in the High Court allege violations of the and environmental clearances. The Congress party strongly criticized the government's move, raising concerns about the potential ecological and social impacts of the mega-project.
UPSC Perspectives
Environmental
The underscores the complex trade-off between strategic infrastructure development and ecological conservation in fragile ecosystems. The project envisions a transshipment port, an international airport, a power plant, and a township on Great Nicobar, the southernmost island of the Andaman and Nicobar archipelago. Environmentalists argue that the project threatens the pristine tropical rainforests, coral reefs in Galathea Bay, and endemic species like the Nicobar Megapode and the giant leatherback turtle. The controversy highlights the critical role of robust Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). Critics allege that the EIA process in this case was flawed and 'pre-fixed,' raising questions about the efficacy of environmental governance. From a UPSC perspective, this case serves as a prime example for Mains questions evaluating the effectiveness of India's environmental clearance framework and the challenge of balancing economic imperatives with commitments to biodiversity conservation and climate goals.
Social
The potential displacement and disruption of indigenous communities are central to the debate surrounding the project. Great Nicobar is home to such as the Shompen and the Nicobarese. The was enacted to recognize and vest forest rights and occupation in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers. Petitions in the allege that provisions of the were violated in obtaining consent for the project. This raises crucial questions about Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), a cornerstone of indigenous rights frameworks globally. The government's push for the project, despite ongoing legal challenges related to tribal rights, highlights the tension between state-led development initiatives and the constitutional mandate (under the Fifth and Sixth Schedules, though not directly applicable here, the spirit applies) to protect the rights and culture of marginalized indigenous populations.
Polity
The procedural maneuvering in this case highlights the dynamics of judicial review and the hierarchy of courts in India. The Union government's decision to approach the to stay proceedings in the (which has jurisdiction over the Andaman and Nicobar Islands) reflects an attempt to centralize the legal battle or expedite a favorable outcome. This raises questions about the principle of forum shopping and the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary. Furthermore, the decision to uphold the right of a former government official to challenge the project underscores the importance of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and locus standi (the right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum) in environmental jurisprudence. The upcoming hearing will be crucial in determining whether the lower court will be allowed to adjudicate on the merits of the environmental and tribal rights violations alleged in the petitions.