The Union government has moved to acquire massive tracts of land in the Lakshadweep Islands for various developmental purposes, allegedly without obtaining the consent of local communities, the majority of whom belong to the Adivasi community or Scheduled Tribes. In January 2026, the Lakshadweep administration issued notifications for conducting social impact assessment (SIA) studies to acquire 2,55,688 square metres of land from the archipelago’s Agatti island. Proceedings for land acquisition—with plans to take over at least 6.5 per cent of the geographical area of Agatti—have been initiated, paying no heed to the long-standing demands of local communities to constitute advisory councils, as mandated by the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, for participatory management of the archipelago’s natural resources.

Allegedly, the Union Territory’s administration did not seek consent from the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), a constitutional body formed to safeguard the interests of tribal communities, before initiating the proceedings to acquire land even though the proposed mega-infrastructure projects are likely to have a substantial impact on the fragile ecology of the archipelago and the livelihoods of its local communities.

The developments come at a time when all forms of local self-governance in the archipelago have already been in limbo for more than three years owing to ongoing litigation over the delimitation of the newly notified gram panchayats. As a result, the Union Home Ministry has been taking all decisions pertaining to the Lakshadweep Islands through the Union Territory’s Administrator, who is an appointee of the Central government. Apart from the aforementioned instances of land takeover, the Union government is also undertaking several projects in Lakshadweep pertaining to scientific and technological initiatives. On March 6, Union Minister of State (Independent Charge) for Science and Technology Jitendra Singh paid a two-day visit to the archipelago to take stock of these initiatives.

Through separate Gazette notifications issued in January, the Union government has proposed to conduct SIAs before taking over land in Agatti to build a defence facility (1,52,760 sq m), set up tourism infrastructure (1,01,020 sq m), and build a city centre (1,908 sq m) to cater to the needs of the defence facility. These assessments are necessary under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (LARR) Act, 2013, whenever the government acquires land for a “public purpose”. The tourism department of Lakshadweep will develop the projects for tourism and the city centre, while the project to develop the defence facility—Forward/Field Base Support Units (FBSUs)—will be undertaken by the IAF in consideration of Agatti’s “strategically important location” and “airstrip infrastructure”.

The notification for land acquisition for the FBSUs states: “The increasing administrative, security, and operational requirements in the region necessitate the establishment of dedicated FBSUs to enhance response capability, logistical coordination, and long-term strategic presence. Currently, the absence of a dedicated facility limits the operational efficiency of the concerned unit/department, particularly in areas such as rapid deployment, resource staging, storage, maintenance, and personnel accommodation. Establishing FBSUs will significantly augment regional readiness and improve the effectiveness of ongoing and future missions.”

Non-consensual land takeover

The SIA notification pertaining to the IAF’s infrastructure project is silent as to whether the consent of all gram sabhas—the lowest rung of local self-governance institutions, which represent all the members of a village—and landowners will be sought before the land is taken over. It merely states that consultations for the project will be held with all stakeholders, including the gram sabhas, in the proposed area.

The two notifications pertaining to land acquisition for tourism infrastructure and the city centre clearly state that the consent of gram sabhas and landowners is “not mandatory”.

The sitting Lok Sabha MP of Lakshadweep, Muhammed Hamdullah Sayeed of the Congress, said that large-scale displacement and loss of livelihoods would result from the projects. He said that the city centre project would result in the demolition of six houses and two commercial shops. Similarly, the defence facility, he alleged, would result in the demolition of 25 houses, 38 temporary sheds, 3 shops, 60 resorts, and 7 building foundations.

“The islanders are not opposed to the defence project. But development activities should be carried out on the uninhabited islands of Lakshadweep. The islands which do not have any population are in any case a security hazard and would be ideal for forward defence bases as well as aviation and tourism facilities. Invoking national security to justify massive displacement has created deep fear and distress among the islanders,” Sayeed told this correspondent.

Sayeed raised the issue of land acquisition in the Lok Sabha during the Budget session in February 2026, where he cited it as a matter of urgent public importance. “The archipelago comprises 36 islands, of which only 11 are inhabited. All inhabited islands are densely populated. Such disproportionate acquisition on a tiny and densely populated island will severely affect housing and livelihoods,” he said.

As per the 2011 Census of India, Agatti Island's population was recorded as 7,560. Of this, 7,167 (94 per cent) belonged to ST communities. According to Article 338A(9) of the Constitution, both Union and State governments are mandated to consult with the NCST before finalising any policy that pertains to the rights of tribal communities.

The retired bureaucrat E.A.S. Sarma told this correspondent: “The local communities in the Lakshadweep islands as well as other islands near it have been notified as Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, any policy decision proposed to be taken, either by the Union government or by the local administration, which would have a bearing on the lives and livelihoods of the local communities, shall not be finalised without prior consultation with the NCST. Evidently, as has been the case all along, in so far as land acquisition in Agatti island is concerned, no such consultation has taken place.”

Lakshadweep Additional District Magistrate-cum-Collector Shivam Chandra did not respond to a query as to whether the NCST was consulted. However, he said that the acquisition was being done as per the procedure established by law. “All procedures as contained in the LARR Act are being followed for acquiring land in Agatti,” Chandra told this correspondent.

Terming the Union government’s decision to acquire land in Agatti as unilateral, Sarma said the exercise is likely to dispossess a large number of local tribal communities from their traditionally held lands on which they have been living and farming for nearly 150 years. Under the traditional system of land ownership called pandarappattam, families hold hereditary rights to live in areas in which their ancestral houses have been built and which they have traditionally farmed by planting coconut groves or other crops. In revenue records, this category of land, classified as “pandaram bhoomi” (crown lands), belongs to the government. The Pandarapattam proclamation of 1865 by the then Maharaja of Travancore granted full proprietary rights, permanent occupancy, and heritable/alienable rights to tenants holding government lands.

To settle traditional land ownership disputes in the Union Territory, the Union government enacted the Laccadive, Minicoy and Amindivi Islands Land Revenue and Tenancy Regulation in 1965. “Through this Act, the government sought to facilitate the local administration to uphold and regularise long-standing land occupation of native residents to improve their well-being. The Act ensures that local communities of the archipelago are not threatened with displacement, loss of livelihoods, or deprived of the right to dignified lives,” Sarma said.

In 2019, the Union Home Ministry held a formal consultation with the NCST to amend regulations for protecting the occupancy rights of native tribal communities who held possession of pandaram lands. This proposal was accepted by the NCST in August 2019, which led to the amendment of the tenancy Act of 1965.

In a letter to the President, dated February 8, 2026, Sarma raised the issue that non-consensual land takeover would result in large-scale socio-economic alienation of tribal communities in Lakshadweep.

“It was not for the local administration to take decisions that would violate the land rights of tribal communities without any consultation whatsoever with the NCST. The lives and the culture of local communities in Lakshadweep in general, and in Agatti island in particular, are symbiotically linked to their lands, including pandaram lands, which they have cultivated for generations,” Sarma stated in his letter.

In 2021, Lakshadweep witnessed large-scale protests against alleged lopsided policies—particularly those pertaining to land acquisition—introduced by the Union government for the islanders’ communities. These protests were unequivocally backed by most political parties opposed to the BJP. These controversial policies were introduced at a time when the entire country was roiling under the deadly Delta wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

A black day was observed by residents in June 2021 demanding the withdrawal of a land acquisition policy and orders by the archipelago’s Administrator, Praful Patel, to ban the slaughter of cows and buffaloes for beef and to lift a ban on the sale and consumption of alcohol. Demands were also raised for the removal of Patel, who has deep political ties with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah.

Tribal communities constitute 94.8 per cent of Lakshadweep’s population. The total population of Lakshadweep was 64,473 following the Census exercise of 2011, of which 61,120 people belonged to various ST communities, including the Koya, Malmi, and Melacheri.

Sixth Schedule status eludes the archipelago

Lakshadweep—unlike India’s north-eastern States of Mizoram, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, and Meghalaya—has not been classified under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. This classification would help protect the traditions and culture of Lakshadweep’s predominantly tribal population and their rights over land, forests, and natural resources. In most of the north-eastern States, Autonomous District Councils administer the areas under their jurisdiction, including the management of land, forests, water resources, public health, mining, mineral exploitation, and social customs.

In the past, Lakshadweep’s tribal communities have demanded that Sixth Schedule status be conferred on the Union Territory. Nearly six years ago, when a slew of regulations—including the Lakshadweep Development Authority Regulation, the Lakshadweep Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Regulation, the Lakshadweep Animal Preservation Regulation, and the Lakshadweep Town and Country Planning Regulations—were hastily passed during the COVID-19 lockdown without the consent of local communities, social activists and political leaders belonging to the Union Territory raised the Sixth Schedule demand. They alleged that the regulations were aimed at grabbing land in the guise of developmental activities by instilling fear in the local population.

Islam is the major religion followed by local communities of the archipelago. As per the Census of India Report of 2011: “More than 93 per cent of the population [in Lakshadweep] who are indigenous, are Muslims and a majority of them belong to the Shafi School of the Sunni Sect.”

T.P. Abdul Jabbar, State general secretary of the Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar) in Lakshadweep, told this correspondent: “Tribal communities living in Lakshadweep for generations have been denied rights to visit islands where they own entire landholdings. In the past, the administration has resorted to demolishing the huts of fishermen communities and felling coconut trees planted inside groves within these islands. Many litigations are pending in courts against the high-handed actions of the local administration.”

Jabbar, who is a resident of Agatti island where the land acquisition is proposed, further alleged: “Large portions of beachfront land have been illegally grabbed from local Scheduled Tribe communities and transferred to outsiders without any norm or procedure, under the pretext of tourism infrastructure development. There is no involvement or participation of local communities in these developmental activities.”

In a recent petition to the President of India, more than two dozen senior citizens of Agatti island complained about how the lack of a legislative set-up in Lakshadweep has resulted in the slow death of democracy and the de facto rule of the Administrator and the Union Home Ministry. They highlighted through the petition that the Administrator’s Advisory Council and the Union Home Minister’s Advisory Council, which had local elected or nominated representatives as stakeholders in the governance and administration of the Union Territory, have ceased to exist. They also pointed how the two-tier panchayati raj system in Lakshadweep has been in limbo for more than three years now owing to legal disputes arising from ham-handed administrative decisions.

In March 2023, the Kerala High Court quashed notifications that were issued for delimitation of panchayats that were newly formed following the promulgation of the Lakshadweep Panchayat Regulation, 2022, by the Union government. The court also quashed notifications pertaining to reservation of seats for women and STs in these panchayats, as well as rules framed for conducting panchayat elections. It held that the rules were issued without considering population data of the panchayats. On the basis of a writ petition challenging the rules, the High Court held that the rules were illegal.

In the two-tier panchayati raj system that was in place in Lakshadweep in accordance with rules framed under the earlier regulation—the Lakshadweep Panchayats Regulation, 1994—the archipelago was divided into 10 gram/dweep (island) panchayats and 1 district panchayat. The geographical limit of each gram/dweep panchayat used to be coextensive with the territorial limit of each inhabited island.

However, the new regulation conferred powers upon the Administrator to declare any local area as a panchayat. The administration issued rules dividing the 10 islands into 18 gram panchayats, the delimitation of which was done without considering population data. The writ petition was filed seeking directions to keep all proceedings pertaining to proposed elections for the new gram panchayats in abeyance. The petitioner pointed out that more populous islands like Androth, Kavaratti, and Minicoy were allotted more seats as against the less populous ones. As per the notification, only two panchayat areas, namely, Kalpeni and Kiltan, were coextensive with the territorial areas of the islands. Six islands—Agatti, Amini, Androth, Kadamath, Kavaratti, and Minicoy—were divided and reconstituted into 15 separate panchayats. The islands of Chetlat and Bitra were merged to constitute one panchayat.

Disposing of the petition, the court issued an order on March 20, 2023, directing the Lakshadweep administration and the Election Commission of India to “initiate expeditious steps to ascertain the population of the territorial area of the newly formed gram panchayats” before proceeding with local body elections. 

Ayaskant Das is an independent journalist and writer based in the National Capital Region.

Also Read | A green light that experts say ignores the evidence

Also Read | Kerala High Court stays two controversial orders of Lakshadweep administration