The administration of Andaman and Nicobar Islands (A&NI) failed to reach the required 50% quorum in the Gram Sabha meetings held to seek approval for the ₹92,000 crore Great Nicobar Island project. Instead, it claimed it did so based on turnout figures ranging from 2% to 15% of the population, which it argued in the Calcutta High Court was considered a “correct quorum”.
A quorum is the minimum number of members required at such a meeting to reach a decision. According to the rules issued by the Central Government for the implementation of the Forest Rights Act (FRA), a quorum for a Gram Sabha is reached only when “half” or 50% of the adult population of the village is present, one-third of whom must be women.
The administration told the High Court that on August 12, 2022, three Gram Sabha meetings were held for Campbell Bay, Laxmi Nagar and Govind Nagar Gram Panchayats, covering seven villages, within half an hour of each other. She said all three meetings passed “unanimously” resolutions approving the project. Campbell Bay meeting had 105 people, Laxmi Nagar meeting 163 people and Govind Nagar sabha had 81 people.
Compared to the population of these Gram Panchayats as per the 2011 census, Campbell Bay Gram Sabha strength was 1.83% of a total population of 5,736, Laxmi Nagar Gram Sabha was 14.72% of a population of 1,107 and Gram Sabha19 attendance was Nagar8%, 676. In total, 349 people (4.6%) signed the project at these three Gram Sabhas, representing seven villages with a total population of 7,519 in 2011.
The submissions were made by the administration in an affidavit to the Bench, which is hearing a series of petitions alleging that procedures under the FRA were violated while obtaining approval for the project. The submissions came after the central government told the Supreme Court that it would need time to “prove that the consent has been taken away from the tribal people”.
In a supplementary affidavit filed by a Tribal Welfare Department official, the A&NI administration claimed that due process was followed under the FRA to hold special Gram Sabhas, with “prior notice and due quorum”, which passed resolutions on people’s forest rights and agreed to divert forest land for the project. The Administration also justified its one-day advance notice for such meetings by saying that FRA does not prescribe any specific minimum notice period.
“It is irrelevant to say that tribal communities were excluded from the FRA process,” the administration said, as their “adequate representation” was ensured in the Sub-Divisional Level Committee (SDLC), which adopted the Gram Sabha resolution and recommended for permission under the FRA. The petitions before the Supreme Court challenge not only the resolutions of the Gram Sabha but also the constitution of the SDLC.
In response, the petitioner further submitted in the affidavit that irrespective of the quorum for these Gram Sabhas, the Nicobar and Shompen tribal communities are not included in the Gram Sabha structure and are instead represented through the Tribal Council which should be the appropriate body for consultation and approval. The petitioner also pointed out that dozens of names of participants appeared in all the three Gram Sabha meetings and in some cases the names were found repeated even in the list of participants of the same Gram Sabha.
While the Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 6) took note of the submissions, Additional Solicitor General of India Ashok Kumar Chakraborty argued whether the petitioner, former secretary of the Union ministries of tribal affairs and environment, had standing to file a public interest litigation (PIL). Among the arguments challenging the maintainability of the PIL, Mr. Chakraborty asked whether the petitioner was authorized by the alleged aggrieved persons in Great Nicobar to file this PIL.
The petitioner argued that the rules governing PIL jurisdiction do not contain any such requirement to obtain “authorization” from groups of people to file a lawsuit. While Mr. Chakraborty responded that the PILs should not be maintainable due to the volume of proceedings and the pre-existing order of the National Green Tribunal (NGT), the petitioner argued that the issues raised before the Supreme Court were not only distinct and different from the issue before the NGT, but that they were also different from each other.
Chief Justice Sujoy Paul said the parties were heard on the “question of preliminary objections relating to venue/sustainability” and added that an order on the matter would be recorded.
Soon after the mega-infrastructure project of the resort got phase-I clearance in 2022, the Little and Great Nicobar Tribal Council, a representative body for Nicobar villages, withdrew its approval for the project in a letter to the Union government and other bodies. However, the local government claimed that it considered the withdrawal to be “procedurally unsustainable and of no legal effect” as it was not addressed to the District Committee Chairman and was delivered after the prescribed period of 60 days after the SDLC’s decision.
But the administration added in its latest affidavit: “The whole matter deserves to be evaluated from a long-term, national and strategic perspective.
Meanwhile, the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs, which is the nodal ministry managing the implementation of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, filed another supplementary affidavit in the High Court, reiterating that it should not be a party to the proceedings as it was not a “necessary party” to the case as the local implementation of the FRA rests with the state/FRA.
Published – 06 May 2026 21:39 IST
