The Calcutta High Court has overruled the Union government’s preliminary objections to a batch of petitions alleging that it violated the Forest Rights Act while obtaining consent for its ₹92,000 crore Great Nicobar Island project.

In an order made public on Friday (May 8, 2026), a Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen dismissed the Centre’s argument that Meena Gupta, the petitioner in the case, did not have the locus standi to approach the court in this matter. It directed the case to be listed for final hearing on June 23.

Ms. Gupta is a retired IAS officer who has served as Secretary to both the Tribal Affairs and Environment Ministries.

Petitioner’s interest

Over the last two years, she has filed a series of petitions challenging the Gram Sabha resolutions consenting to the diversion of forest land for the mega-infrastructure project under the 2006 Forest Rights Act (FRA); the constitution of a sub-divisional level committee under the same law; and the notifications reducing the buffer zones for both 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.

On Wednesday (May 6, 2026), Additional Solicitor General of India Ashok Kumar Chakraborty argued that Ms. Gupta did not have authorisation from the tribal population of Great Nicobar Island to file the petition, adding that the petition was not maintainable because her place of residence was in Hyderabad.

The court ruled that in this case, it was “clear that the petitioner has sufficient interest in the matter”, adding that “she is espousing the cause of the vulnerable tribal community”.

‘National importance’

The Centre also argued that the project was of “great national importance” and that “such project of national importance cannot be called in question in a [public interest litigation] PIL”. It added: “The right of a sovereign to construct a project must prevail over the personal rights of its citizens.”

The Bench responded by saying, “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.”

The ASG further argued that the petitions should not be maintainable because multiple petitions were filed for prayers that could have been made in the same petition, further positing that the National Green Tribunal had already heard and ruled on this issue, and hence the principle of res judicata would apply. The court dismissed both arguments, ruling that the petitions and issues before the High Court were distinct not only from each other but also from the issue decided by the NGT earlier this year.

Dubious Gram Sabha consent

Over the last few months, the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs has asked to be dropped as a respondent in these cases, and the A&NI administration has insisted that all due process was followed to convene the Gram Sabhas and pass resolutions consenting to the diversion of forest land.

In one supplementary affidavit submitted by the A&NI administration, however, attendance records from the concerned Gram Sabha meetings had shown that the mandated quorum of members under the FRA had not been present.

The petitioner has also consistently argued that the consent of the Nicobarese and Shompen tribals cannot have been sought from the Gram Sabhas, which represent the interests of settler communities on Great Nicobar Island. Nicobarese tribals, on the other hand, are represented by the Tribal Council, which should have been the appropriate authority to consult and seek consent from.

The Centre’s plans to build an international container transhipment port, an airport, and a greenfield township that is intended to be driven by a tourism-reliant economy received Stage-I clearance in 2022. Soon after, the Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar withdrew its consent for the project, alleging that its forest rights had not been settled, adding that they were facing pressure from the local administration to “surrender” their ancestral forest lands and villages.