Center moves Supreme Court to stay hearing on Great Nicobar project

Supreme Court of India. File | Photo Credit: Deepika Rajesh

The Union government has moved the Supreme Court to stay further proceedings in petitions pending final hearing in the Calcutta High Court alleging that provisions of the Forest Rights Act (FRA) were violated while obtaining approval for the ₹92,000 crore Great Nicobar Island project.

On 6 May 2026, the High Court dismissed the Centre’s preliminary objections to the petitions. The Center argued that Meena Gupta, the petitioner, did not have standing to approach the court. A bench of then Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen rejected the argument, paving the way for the final hearing.

In a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court, the Union government through the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change sought a stay on the high court order and the pending proceedings. The Center reiterated that Ms. Gupta had no standing and said that the challenges to the project filed in the Supreme Court were an abuse of process and that the government had an obligation to ensure that the country’s growth was not stalled by the claims of private individuals, as The Hindu had learned.

While Supreme Court records showed that the SLP was filed on July 24, High Court records revealed that on September 24, the Center had agreed to send the matters for final hearing on November 25 and 26. The Supreme Court’s website showed that the centre’s SLP is listed for preliminary hearing on October 5.

A retired IAS officer, Ms. Gupta has served as secretary in both the environment and tribal affairs ministries. In May, the High Court found that the petitioner had “sufficient interest in the matter” and was “advocating the cause of a vulnerable tribal community”. She said she was involved in drafting the bill that eventually became the FRA.

On the Center’s arguments about the national importance and cost of the project, the court ruled: “For now, this is an argument about the cost and importance of the project, at this stage we are not willing to enter into the merits of the case. A project with high costs must be carried out in accordance with the applicable laws that apply to the field, and is not beyond the scope of judicial review of permissible parameters.”

Over the past two years, Ms. Gupta has filed several petitions challenging Gram Sabha resolutions agreeing to divert forest land for the project under the FRA, setting up a lower-level committee under the same Act and notifying the reduction of buffer zones for Campbell Bay and Galathea Bay National Parks.

The petitions challenge the validity of the certificate issued by the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration, which claims that all rights under the FRA have been identified and settled.

Published – 29 Sep 2026 22:36 IST