The Supreme Court on Monday declined to entertain the Centre’s challenge to a Calcutta High Court order holding maintainable public interest litigations alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in securing consent for the Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project.
A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana noted that the dispute was already pending before the Calcutta High Court, where the matter is listed for hearing on November 25 and 26. The bench asked the High Court to proceed with the case and make an effort to hear all connected petitions on the scheduled dates.
Centre Questions Maintainability Of PILs
Attorney General R Venkataramani argued that the case involved an issue of great national importance and questioned whether the PILs were maintainable.
He pointed out that the project’s environmental clearance had already been challenged before the National Green Tribunal and raised concerns over multiple proceedings subsequently being initiated on different grounds.
Venkataramani also submitted that the question of maintainability went to the root of the dispute and urged the Supreme Court to leave room for the Centre to make further submissions before the High Court.
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati said proceedings concerning the environmental clearance had already gone through two rounds before the NGT.
Tribal Council Defends PIL
Senior advocate S Muralidhar, appearing for a tribal council impleaded in the proceedings, argued that the case concerned Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups and therefore could validly be pursued through a PIL.
Justice Bagchi observed that since the High Court had already ruled on maintainability, issues concerning the extent of public interest involved and the scope of the petitions could remain open for consideration.
Muralidhar submitted that the question of whether the public interest element survived might itself become academic because the Tribal Council had sought impleadment.
Justice Bagchi said the broader issue concerned constitutional protection for the identity and culture of indigenous communities. Referring to demographic changes in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, he raised the question of whether indigenous groups should be fully integrated into the mainstream or whether their distinct identity and culture should be preserved.
He observed that preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right.
The Attorney General clarified that the Centre’s submissions were not directed at vulnerable tribal groups, but at persons who had become integrated into the mainstream.
High Court Asked To Hear Connected Matters Together
The Chief Justice of India initially indicated that the Supreme Court would request the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to take up the matter at the earliest. The bench was later informed that other proceedings relating to the same issue were also pending before the High Court.
The Supreme Court recorded that the main case had already been fixed for hearing on November 25 and 26 and directed the High Court to complete pleadings in the connected matters and endeavour to hear all of them on those dates. Both sides assured the bench of their cooperation.
The Calcutta High Court had on May 6 upheld the maintainability of PILs alleging violations in obtaining consent for the Great Nicobar development project.
The petitions challenge various governmental actions linked to the project, including alleged violations of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and the reduction of eco-sensitive buffer zones around national parks.
The Centre had objected to the maintainability of the PIL filed by former bureaucrat Meena Gupta, arguing that she lacked locus standi because she lived in Hyderabad and not in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The High Court, however, held that there could be no fixed rule on locus standi in PIL matters and that genuine public causes involving vulnerable communities could be raised by persons who were not themselves directly affected.
It also held that a project does not become immune from judicial review merely because it involves substantial expenditure or is considered nationally important.
The Centre subsequently approached the Supreme Court against that order.
