Great Nicobar Project: Calcutta HC Upholds Maintainability Of PILs Alleging Forest Rights Act Violations, Calls Tribals 'Very Vulnerable'
Hey there! This news is super relevant for your CLAT prep because it shows how our courts protect fundamental rights. The Calcutta High Court just allowed a Public Interest Litigation, or PIL, to proceed against the Great Nicobar Project. This PIL, filed by an activist not from the islands, alleges violations of the Forest Rights Act, which protects tribal communities. The court rejected the government's argument that the petitioner lacked locus standi, meaning the right to bring a case. This really highlights the concept of PILs, especially for 'Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups' (PVTGs) under the Forest Rights Act, 2006. Remember landmark Supreme Court cases on PIL like People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India. It also touches upon judicial review of government projects, even those of 'national importance'. So for your CLAT prep, understand PIL, locus standi, the Forest Rights Act, and the importance of judicial review.
The Calcutta High Court has held that a Public Interest Litigation challenging alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act in connection with the Great Nicobar infrastructure project is maintainable, rejecting the Union Government's objection that the petitioner lacked locus standi because she is a resident of Hyderabad and not of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed that there can be “no thumb rule” regarding locus standi in PILs and that courts must permit genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities to be raised even by persons not directly affected.
Overruling the preliminary objection raised by the Additional Solicitor General, the Court held:
“Rule 56 in clear terms provides that if a person or class of persons by reason of poverty, helplessness or disability or socially or economically disadvantageous positions, is unable to approach to Court for relief, for redressal of their grievance, any member of the public can approach the Court.”
The Court was hearing three connected PILs filed by retired IAS officer Meena Gupta challenging various governmental actions linked to the Great Nicobar development project, including alleged violations of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, and reduction of eco-sensitive buffer zones around national parks.
The Union Government argued that the PILs were not maintainable because Gupta is a permanent resident of Hyderabad and had no direct cause of action in the Islands. It was further contended that the project involved infrastructure of “great national importance,” including port, airport, power station and defence facilities, with an estimated cost of ₹72,000 crore.
The ASG also argued that the tribal communities for whose benefit the PILs were filed were not parties before the Court and that the sovereign right of the State to execute strategic projects must prevail.
Opposing the objection, the petitioner relied on her long association with tribal welfare and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The Court noted her pleadings stating that she had served as Secretary, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, participated in finalisation of the Forest Rights Bill before it became law, and was instrumental in replacing the expression “Primitive Tribal Groups” with “Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG).”
The Bench also recorded that the petitioner had spent part of her childhood in the Islands and had closely followed issues concerning tribal rights in Great Nicobar.
Referring extensively to Supreme Court precedents on PIL jurisprudence, including People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, the Court emphasised that PILs are meant to secure justice for disadvantaged communities unable to access courts themselves.
Rejecting the Government's reliance on an earlier Calcutta High Court ruling dismissing a PIL filed by Delhi-based petitioners against West Bengal's sand policy, the Court held that the said judgment could not be applied “in a mechanical manner” because the present petitioner demonstrated a substantial and longstanding connection with the subject matter.
The Court further held that merely because a project involves enormous expenditure or national importance, it does not become immune from judicial review.
In the connected PILs challenging reduction of buffer zones around Galathea National Park and Campbell Bay National Park, the Union also argued that the petitions were barred by principles analogous to Order II Rule 2 CPC and res judicata. The Court rejected those objections as well, holding that each petition arose from separate notifications and distinct causes of action.
The matters have now been directed to be listed for final hearing on June 23, 2026.