The Supreme Court has declined to entertain the Union’s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order that upheld the maintainability of public interest litigations alleging violation of the Forest Rights Act in the Great Nicobar Island project, and has asked the High Court to decide the matter at the earliest.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to interfere with an order of the Calcutta High Court holding maintainable the PILs that challenge the Great Nicobar Island infrastructure project on the ground that it allegedly violates the Forest Rights Act, and requested the High Court to hear the petitions expeditiously [Union of India v. Meena Gupta & Ors.].
A Bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the matter (Diary No. 44246/2026). Attorney General R. Venkataramani appeared for the Union, and Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar appeared for the respondent-petitioner. The Court has not examined the merits of the allegations against the project, which remain to be decided by the High Court.
Contentions of the Union
The Attorney General submitted that the matter is of great national importance. The project, which includes a port, an airport, a power station and defence facilities, involves an estimated expenditure of Rs 72,000 crore. He questioned the maintainability of the PIL, contending that the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad and not of the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, and that the tribal communities concerned are not parties to the proceedings.
Contentions of the petitioner
Dr. Muralidhar argued that the PIL is maintainable as it concerns Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs). He submitted that the petitioner has a substantial connection with tribal welfare and the Islands, having served as Secretary in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, and that she took part in drafting the Forest Rights Bill and in replacing the term “Primitive Tribal Groups” with “PVTG”.
What the Calcutta High Court held
The Division Bench of the High Court had upheld the maintainability of the PILs, observing that there can be no thumb rule on locus standi in public interest litigation and that courts must permit genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities even where the petitioner is not directly affected. It noted that the tribal population in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands is a very vulnerable tribal group.
A project involving huge expenditure must proceed in accordance with governing laws.
The High Court held that the national importance of a project or the large sums involved do not shield it from judicial review. It declined to apply the precedent relied on by the Union, in which a Delhi-based petitioner had challenged West Bengal’s sand policy, noting that the petitioner, a retired IAS officer, had shown a substantial connection with the subject matter.
The Supreme Court’s order on the Great Nicobar project PIL
The Supreme Court declined to entertain the Union’s challenge. It noted that the lead case has been fixed for hearing before the High Court on November 25 and 26, and requested the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to expedite the proceedings. The High Court was asked to complete pleadings in the connected matters and to try to hear all the cases on the scheduled dates. The Court recorded the assurance of both sides that they would cooperate fully.
The allegations in the PILs are yet to be adjudicated, and the Supreme Court has expressed no opinion on the project or on the Union’s position on the merits.
Case Title: Union of India v. Meena Gupta & Ors. [Diary No. 44246/2026]
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Attorney General R. Venkataramani for the Union; Senior Advocate Dr. S. Muralidhar for the respondent-petitioner