Confusion over clearances for great nicobar project persists

Confusion over clearances for great nicobar project persists

Tribal Affairs Ministry tells Calcutta HC that it should be ‘removed from the list of respondents’ as implementation of law was within the domain of Union Territory; it says NOC was ‘given on the basis of facts given by the islands administration’.

Months before seeking a report from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands administration on alleged violations of forest rights while executing the ₹81,000-crore Great Nicobar Islands development and infrastructure project, the Tribal Affairs Ministry had told a Bench of the Calcutta High Court that it should be dropped as a party in a petition that challenged the project’s clearances on the same grounds.

The court is hearing a batch of petitions challenging the forest clearance. The petitions, filed by the former official Meena Gupta, argue that provisions of the Forest Rights Act, 2006 were violated in obtaining the consent of the tribespeople to divert about 13,000 hectares of forestland for the project, which includes a transshipment port, an airport, a power plant, and a township.

Earlier this week, the Ministry sought a “factual report” from the islands administration on a fresh complaint from the Tribal Council of Little and Great Nicobar that processes under the Act had not even been initiated in Nicobar, contrary to what the Deputy Commissioner of Nicobar certified in August 2022, claiming that all rights under the legislation had been identified and settled and consent obtained for diversion.

The Union Environment and Tribal Affairs Ministries and the islands administration had filed pleadings before the court between January and February. In these affidavits, the Environment Ministry said it was yet to receive a compliance report from the islands administration on the completion of all 37 conditions imposed in its Stage I clearance for the project, of which one is the FRA compliance.

In defending itself and insisting that all procedures under the FRA were followed, the islands administration has accused the petitioner of “cloaking” a “private interest litigation” petition as a public interest litigation petition.

FRA is State domain

However, the Tribal Affairs Ministry, the nodal Ministry for the FRA, has submitted that it should be “removed from the list of respondents”, arguing that the implementation of the law falls upon the respective State or Union Territory. In its February 19 affidavit, the Ministry denied and disputed all assertions made in the petition.

Notably, with regard to the no-objection certificate issued by it in 2020 for the project, mandating FRA compliance, the Ministry said the NOC was “given on the basis of facts given by the Andaman and Nicobar Administration in the denotification proposal”.

This comes even as Tribal Affairs Minister Jual Oram told The Hindu in 2024 that his Ministry would look into the clearances obtained for the project. Earlier this year, Mr. Oram had said at a public event that the Ministry was looking into the concerns raised about the project.

Land a State subject

In its complaint, the Tribal Council for Little and Great Nicobar alleged that this certificate amounted to a “false” representation as the process for recognising and vesting rights under the FRA had not even been initiated on the Nicobar islands.

However, in submissions to the High Court, the Environment Ministry has not mentioned this certificate.

It has said that land is a State subject, further asserting that the Ministry of Tribal Affairs is the nodal Ministry for the Forest Rights Act, 2006. In its affidavit, dated January 14, it went on to submit that no provisions of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023, “abrogate” any part of the FRA.