Centre moves Supreme Court to stay Calcutta High Court hearings on Great Nicobar project

The Union government has asked the Supreme Court to halt ongoing proceedings in the Calcutta High Court that challenge the manner in which consent was obtained under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) for the ₹92,000-crore Great Nicobar Island project. In a special leave petition (SLP) filed by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC), the Centre has sought a stay on the High Court’s order that allowed the challenges to proceed to final hearing.

Centre seeks to pause High Court proceedings

According to Supreme Court records, the Centre filed the SLP on July 24. The petition asks the apex court to stay both the Calcutta High Court’s May 6, 2026 order overruling its preliminary objections and the further conduct of the High Court proceedings. The Supreme Court’s website lists the SLP for tentative hearing on October 5.

The Union government has reiterated before the Supreme Court that the writ petitioner in the High Court, retired IAS officer Meena Gupta, lacks locus standi. It has argued that the petitions amount to an abuse of process and contended that the government is duty-bound to ensure that the country’s growth is not impeded by claims of private individuals.

High Court had cleared petitions for final hearing

On May 6, 2026, a Bench of then Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen in the Calcutta High Court rejected the Centre’s preliminary objections that sought to block the petitions on the ground of maintainability. The court dismissed the Centre’s contention that Ms. Gupta had no locus standi to approach the court and cleared the way for a final hearing on the merits.

Addressing the Centre’s submissions about the project’s national importance and the scale of investment, the High Court observed: “So far, argument regarding the cost and importance of project is concerned, at this stage we are not inclined to enter into the merits of the case. A project involving huge expenditure must proceed in accordance with governing laws holding the field and it is not beyond the scope of judicial review on permissible parameters.”

Petitioner’s standing affirmed

In May, while affirming Ms. Gupta’s standing, the High Court noted that she had “sufficient interest in the matter” and was “espousing the cause of the vulnerable tribal community.” The court also recorded that she had served as Secretary in both the Environment and Tribal Affairs Ministries and was involved in drafting the Bill that later became the FRA.

Alleged FRA violations and contested approvals

Over the past two years, Ms. Gupta has filed multiple petitions in the Calcutta High Court challenging several components of the statutory and administrative process related to the Great Nicobar project. These include:

• The Gram Sabha resolutions purportedly consenting to the diversion of forest land for the project under the FRA.
• The constitution of a sub-divisional level committee under the FRA.
• Notifications that reduced the buffer zones for the Campbell Bay and Galathea Bay National Parks.

The petitions also question the validity of a certificate issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration claiming that all rights under the FRA have been identified and settled.

Procedural timeline and upcoming dates

While the Centre filed its SLP in the Supreme Court on July 24, High Court records show that, as of September 24, the Union government had consented to the matters being listed for final hearing on November 25 and 26. The Supreme Court is tentatively scheduled to take up the Centre’s plea for a stay on October 5. The outcome of the SLP could determine whether the High Court’s November hearings proceed as planned.

Government’s position

In its challenge, the Centre has maintained that the petitions before the High Court are not maintainable at the instance of Ms. Gupta. It has argued that the project, given its scale, strategic nature and economic significance, should not be stalled by what it characterizes as private claims raised through the litigation, and that the government bears responsibility to prevent such disruption while still acting within the legal framework.

Judicial review and compliance

The High Court’s May order underscored that projects of significant financial magnitude are subject to judicial oversight to ensure compliance with existing laws. It declined to consider arguments about the project’s importance at the preliminary stage, emphasizing instead that adherence to legal procedures under statutes such as the FRA remains central to the court’s review.

What lies ahead

The Supreme Court’s consideration of the SLP will be pivotal in setting the course for the litigation. A stay could pause the Calcutta High Court’s proceedings, while a refusal to stay would allow the High Court to conduct the scheduled final hearings in November. Until then, the legal contest over whether the FRA’s consent and settlement processes were properly followed for the Great Nicobar project remains unresolved.

Published: September 29, 2026