Supreme Court refuses to stay Calcutta HC proceedings on Great Nicobar project
The Supreme Court on Monday, October 5, 2026, declined a Union government plea to halt ongoing proceedings in the Calcutta High Court against the Great Nicobar Island Project, underscoring that preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. The court instead urged the High Court to hear and decide the issues without delay in a case that challenges the project over its potential impact on the island’s fragile ecosystem and on the rights of its indigenous communities under the Forest Rights Act, 2006.
What the Supreme Court decided
A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant refused to stay the High Court proceedings arising from petitions filed by former Union Environment Secretary Meena Gupta. The petitions question the legality of the diversion of large tracts of forest land and allege threats to the way of life and culture of the Shompen and Nicobarese tribes.
While declining the Centre’s request, the Bench indicated that it would ask the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously, including all connected petitions. The court also clarified that the Union government could place before the High Court decisions of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) pertaining to the project, with whatever persuasive value they may carry.
Government’s position: ‘Project of national importance’
Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati described the project—valued at over ₹72,000 crore and involving a container terminal—as one of immense national importance and strategic value. Mr. Venkataramani argued that the development would not lead to any loss of habitation for the island’s indigenous populations, including the endangered Shompen tribe.
Ms. Bhati submitted that the NGT had twice addressed concerns about the project, upholding its environmental clearance subject to conditions and the establishment of a High Powered Committee to re-examine specific ecological impacts. She noted that a review petition challenging the environmental clearance was later rejected by the NGT in April 2023.
Court’s observations: Culture as a fundamental right
During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench along with Justice V. Mohana, stressed the constitutional imperative to protect cultural rights, particularly those of vulnerable tribal communities. “Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right. When you are talking about tribe cultures in Nicobar ecology. Tribe culture requires constitutional protection,” Justice Bagchi observed orally.
Justice Bagchi also remarked that a degree of filtration was required to distinguish between genuine issues of national security and matters driven by commercial interests.
NGT rulings and the High Court proceedings
Despite the NGT’s orders clearing the environmental clearance with conditions, the Calcutta High Court entertained writ petitions filed by Ms. Gupta that flagged severe environmental and cultural risks allegedly posed by the project. In May, the High Court dismissed the Union government’s preliminary objections to Ms. Gupta’s locus standi, which had argued that she lacked standing because she was not a local resident.
The High Court scheduled substantive hearings for November 25 and 26 to consider constitutional questions centered on fundamental rights and the preservation of the tribals’ way of life. The petitions contend that the proposed diversion of more than 130 sq. km of pristine tropical forest violates the Forest Rights Act, 2006, and threatens the culture and livelihood of the Shompen and Nicobarese communities.
Arguments on tribal status and representation
Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, representing Ms. Gupta, told the Supreme Court that the Centre’s objections regarding the maintainability of the High Court petitions had become academic because tribal councils had already been impleaded in the case. In response to the Attorney General’s assertion that the tribes were “integrated” and not within a protected category, Mr. Muralidhar interjected: “The Shompen are classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.”
The government maintained that concerns about displacement and cultural erosion were overstated, while the petitioners emphasized the project’s potential to irreversibly harm a delicate ecological zone and the rights of indigenous groups.
Scope before the High Court
Although the Union requested that it be permitted to continue pressing the question of maintainability before the High Court, the Supreme Court said it would limit itself to urging the High Court to decide the case promptly. The Bench added that the Centre could present the NGT’s decisions before the High Court, which would ascertain their relevance and persuasive value in the constitutional and statutory questions raised.
What comes next
With the Supreme Court declining to interfere, the focus returns to the Calcutta High Court, where the scheduled hearings on November 25 and 26 are expected to engage with core constitutional issues related to fundamental rights, environmental protections, and the safeguarding of tribal cultures. The High Court’s consideration will likely weigh the NGT’s prior orders, the Union government’s claims of strategic necessity, and the petitioners’ contentions regarding cultural and ecological harm.
Why it matters
The case has become a high-stakes test of how India balances large-scale infrastructure and strategic priorities with constitutional protections for culture and the environment. By reiterating the fundamental right to preserve culture and declining to pause the High Court’s scrutiny, the Supreme Court has set the stage for a comprehensive judicial examination of the Great Nicobar Island Project’s implications for indigenous rights and ecological integrity.
