Supreme Court refuses to stay proceedings against Nicobar project

Saying that “preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right”, the Supreme Court on Monday (October 5, 2026) did not agree with a Union government plea to stay Calcutta High Court proceedings in a petition filed by former Union Environment Secretary Meena Gupta challenging the Great Nicobar Island Project as a threat to the area’s fragile ecosystem and Forest Rights Act, 2006.

A three-judge Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant instead urged the Calcutta High Court to hear the case and decide the issues without delay.

Appearing for the Centre, Attorney General R. Venkataramani and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said the project worth over ₹ 72,000 crore involving a container terminal was of “immense” national importance and strategic value.

Mr. Venkataramani said there was “no loss of habitation” for the indigenous tribal population like the endangered Shompen tribe of the Great Nicobar Island.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi, on the Bench along with Justice V. Mohana, said there should be some degree of filtration between what constitutes the security of the state and what involved commercial interests.

“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.

Ms. Bhati submitted that the National Green Tribunal (NGT) had already twice disposed of the apprehensions raised regarding the project. It had cleared the environmental clearance given to the project, subject to conditions and the formation of a High Powered Committee to re-examine specific ecological impacts.

The law officer said even a review against the environmental clearance was rejected by the NGT subsequently in April 2023.

However, the Calcutta High Court had entertained writ petitions filed by Ms. Gupta highlighting severe environmental threats the project may allegedly cause.

In May, the High Court dismissed the Union government’s preliminary objections regarding the locus standi of Ms. Gupta, banking on the submission that she was not a local. The High Court had scheduled the case for November 25 and November 26 for hearing constitutional issues centring on fundamental rights and preservation of the tribals’ way of life.

Senior advocate S. Muralidhar, for Ms. Gupta said the Union’s argument in maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court has become academic as the tribal councils have already been impleaded.

Mr. Venkataramani said the tribes were integrated, and were not in the protected category.

“There is a lot of international…” he said. “The Shompen are classified as a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group,” Mr. Muralidhar intervened.

The Shompen and the Nicobarese tribes are said to be affected by the project.

The Bench said the Union government could place the NGT decisions, with whatever persuasive value they may command, before the High Court.

Mr. Venkataramani urged the apex court to at least allow the Centre to continue pressing the question of maintainability before the High Court.

But the Bench said it would limit itself to asking the High Court Chief Justice to decide the case, including all the petitions, without delay.

The petitions in the High Court had claimed that the diversion of over 130 sq. km of pristine tropical forest violated the 2006 Act and threatened the Shompen and Nicobarese way of life and culture.