CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS • CarpeDiem IAS •

Great Nicobar Project – Clearance Controversy

14 Sep 2025 GS 3 Environment
Great Nicobar Project – Clearance Controversy Click to view full image


Background

  • Project Cost: ₹81,000 crore Great Nicobar Island Development & Infrastructure Project.

  • Components:

    • Trans-shipment port

    • International airport

    • Gas/coal-based power plant

    • Township

  • Forest Diversion: ~13,000 hectares of forestland.

  • Clearance: Stage I clearance granted with 37 conditions, including Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006 compliance.

Core Issue

  • Allegations of violation of FRA, 2006 in obtaining consent from tribespeople.

Tribal Affairs Ministry’s Position

  • Argument: Implementation of FRA is State/UT responsibility.

  • Its 2020 No-Objection Certificate (NOC) for the project was based on facts furnished by the A&N Administration.

  • In Feb 2024, Minister Jual Oram had stated that the Ministry would look into the clearances.

Andaman & Nicobar Administration’s Position

  • Claims all FRA procedures followed.

  • Certificate (Aug 2022) claimed all rights identified & settled; consent obtained.

  • Accuses petitioner of disguising a Private Interest Litigation (PIL) as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Tribal Council’s Complaint

  • Argues FRA processes not even initiated in Nicobar Islands.

  • Calls the 2022 certificate a false representation.

Environment Ministry’s Position

  • Yet to receive a compliance report on Stage I conditions, including FRA compliance.

  • Submits that land is a State subject.

  • Asserts Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023 do not override FRA.

Legal/Constitutional Dimensions

  • Forest Rights Act, 2006: Recognition and vesting of forest rights of forest-dwelling communities.

  • Article 246 & 7th Schedule: Land, forests largely State subjects; Union has role in conservation.

  • Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023: Governs diversion of forest land; but FRA primacy remains.

  • Judicial Scrutiny: HC examining if FRA procedures (Gram Sabha consent, rights settlement) were bypassed.


Ecological and Environmental Concerns

  1. Biodiversity Loss

    • Island is a UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserve (2013) and Biosphere Reserve (1989).

    • Home to the Giant Leatherback Turtle, one of the world’s largest marine turtle

    • Galathea Bay is a key nesting site, yet the Wildlife Sanctuary was denotified (2021).

    • Eco-sensitive zones of Galathea & Campbell Bay National Parks reduced to zero, opening pristine forests for construction.

      Note: Globally, leatherback status according to IUCN is listed as Vulnerable, but many subpopulations (such as in the Pacific and Southwest Atlantic) are Critically Endangered.

  2. Faulty Environmental Clearance Process

    • Public hearings rushed during COVID-19 pandemic.

    • ~400 objections raised on ecology, tribal rights, and disaster risk were ignored.

    • Contradictions on compensatory afforestation: initially proposed in Madhya Pradesh, later shifted to Haryana — ecologically irrelevant to island’s tropical forests.

  3. Disaster Vulnerability

    • Great Nicobar lies on a major fault line near the epicenter of the 2004 tsunami.

    • Over 444 earthquakes in last 10 years (Janki Andharia, TISS).

    • Indira Point permanently submerged post-2004 — showing tectonic instability.

    • Large infrastructure may face seismic and tsunami risks.

Tribal Rights Concerns

  1. Affected Communities

    • Shompen (PVTG, ~200 people) – nomadic hunter-gatherers, highly forest-dependent.

    • Nicobarese (~1,000 people) – horticulturalists and fishers.

  2. Forest Rights Act, 2006

    • FRA requires Gram Sabha consent before diversion of forest land.

    • Activists argue process not followed; Shompen are legally the authority for protecting their reserve.

    • Violation of FRA, 2006 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act flagged by researchers.

  3. Institutional Apathy

    • A&N Directorate of Tribal Welfare admitted exemptions would be sought “whenever needed” for execution.

    • MoTA, NITI Aayog, and MHA passed responsibility among each other when RTIs were filed.

    • No consultation with National Commission for Scheduled Tribes, despite constitutional mandate.

Strategic vs Ecological Trade-off

  • Government’s Argument:

    • Enhances India’s presence in the Indian Ocean, countering China’s “String of Pearls”.

    • Creates new logistics hub for global trade.

    • Brings employment and infrastructure to remote islands.

  • Critics’ Argument:

    • Ecological destruction and displacement outweigh economic gains.

    • “Planned destruction” of fragile ecosystem and tribal culture.

    • Investment of ₹70,000+ crore may itself be in jeopardy due to seismic risk.

    • Instead of “holistic development”, it is a “mega folly” (Sekhsaria).



← Back to list