Supreme Court declines Centre’s challenge to Great Nicobar PIL maintainability and asks Calcutta HC to hear the Forest Rights Act matter soon.
The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the Calcutta High Court proceedings challenging the alleged Forest Rights Act violations in obtaining consent for the Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain the Union Government’s challenge against a Calcutta High Court order which held that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the Great Nicobar Project was maintainable.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana declined to interfere at this stage, noting that the matter remains pending before the Calcutta High Court and is already fixed for hearing on November 25 and 26.
The Supreme Court accordingly urged the High Court to take up the matter on the scheduled dates and proceed with the case expeditiously.
PIL Challenges Forest Rights Act Process
The litigation before the Calcutta High Court concerns allegations that the statutory procedure under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, was not properly followed while obtaining consent for diversion of forest land connected with the Great Nicobar project.
The PIL was filed by former IAS officer Meena Gupta, who has challenged various governmental actions concerning the project. Among the issues raised are the procedures adopted for obtaining consent under the Forest Rights Act and the manner in which forest rights were dealt with before approvals for the project were granted.
The Great Nicobar project is a major infrastructure proposal involving facilities including a transshipment port, airport, township and power infrastructure. Given its scale and strategic importance, the project has been the subject of considerable governmental and legal scrutiny.
The PIL, however, does not merely question the desirability of the project. Its central legal challenge concerns whether the statutory safeguards relating to the rights of indigenous and forest-dwelling communities were complied with.
Centre Had Questioned Maintainability
Before the Calcutta High Court, the Union Government had objected to the maintainability of the PIL, including on the ground that Gupta was a resident of Hyderabad and was not a resident of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The Centre had also questioned whether the petitioner had sufficient locus standi to raise issues concerning the tribal communities of Great Nicobar.
The Calcutta High Court rejected the preliminary objection. In its May 2026 ruling, the Court held that there could be no rigid rule regarding locus standi in a PIL and that genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities could be raised by persons who were not themselves directly affected.
The High Court also considered Gupta’s professional background and her association with tribal welfare and the Forest Rights Act while examining the maintainability objection.
Importantly, the High Court’s decision did not amount to a final determination that the allegations concerning the Great Nicobar project were established. Rather, it permitted the PIL to proceed for consideration on its substantive issues.
Supreme Court Declines To Interfere At This Stage
The Union subsequently approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s decision on maintainability.
During Monday’s hearing, Attorney General for India R. Venkataramani reportedly argued that the issue involved matters of great national importance and questioned the maintainability of the PIL.
On the other side, Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar, appearing for a tribal council that had been impleaded in the proceedings, submitted that the case concerned the rights of Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups and was therefore an appropriate subject for a PIL.
The Supreme Court ultimately chose not to interfere with the pending High Court proceedings.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that the High Court had already dealt with the question of maintainability, and the remaining question concerned how far public interest survived in the matter—an issue that could be considered by the High Court.
The Supreme Court was also informed that other connected proceedings concerning the issue were pending before the Calcutta High Court.
High Court Asked To Proceed On November 25-26
The Supreme Court noted that the lead matter before the Calcutta High Court had already been fixed for hearing on November 25 and 26.
Rather than keeping the proceedings in abeyance, the Supreme Court requested that the High Court complete pleadings in the connected matters and make an endeavour to hear the cases on the dates already fixed.
Both sides also assured the Supreme Court that they would cooperate with the proceedings.
The order therefore leaves the substantive Forest Rights Act dispute before the Calcutta High Court.
The immediate significance of the Supreme Court’s decision is that the maintainability challenge raised by the Union has not resulted in the PIL being halted at this stage. The High Court will now have the opportunity to examine the substantive issues concerning the alleged statutory violations and the process through which consent was obtained.
The case thus places the focus back on the Calcutta High Court, where the questions surrounding forest rights, tribal consent and the legality of the procedures followed for the Great Nicobar project remain pending.
The Supreme Court’s intervention, for now, is limited to ensuring that the pending proceedings move forward without unnecessary delay. The ultimate determination on the substantive allegations remains to be made by the High Court.
For more updates on important court proceedings, readers can follow The Legal Observer and its national legal news coverage. Further legal developments and court updates are also available through The Legal Observer’s videos and its YouTube channel.
