The Supreme Court today refused to entertain the Union's challenge to a Calcutta High Court order which upheld the maintainability of a PIL alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in obtaining consent for the Great Nicobar Island mega-infrastructure project.

Noting that the matter is pending in the High Court and is fixed for hearing on November 25-26, the Supreme Court declined interference, urging the High Court to hear the matter on the date fixed itself.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana heard the matter.

Attorney General for India R Venkataramani said that the issue was of "great national importance" and questioned the maintainability of PIL on the issue.

He submitted that the environmental clearance for the project had already been challenged before the National Green Tribunal and expressed concern over multiple proceedings being initiated subsequently.

"Somebody comes and files a petition years later, and then three different petitions try to challenge it in three different ways. Then they say the tribals are affected and they are not before the Court. Now they have got impleaded," the Attorney General submitted.

He argued that the question of maintainability went to the root of the matter and requested the Court to allow the Union to make further submissions on the issue.

"I just want to keep the door open," he said.

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati also referred to the proceedings before the NGT concerning the environmental clearance.

Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar, appearing for petitioner Meena Gupta, submitted that the issue concerned Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTG), and hence a Public Interest Litigation was maintainable.

Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed that, since there was already a decision on maintainability, the questions concerning the public interest involved and the scope of the petition could be kept open.

Muralidhar, however, submitted that the question of how far the public interest survived might itself become academic, since the Tribal Council had filed an application for impleadment.

Justice Bagchi then raised broader questions concerning the constitutional protection of the identity and culture of indigenous communities.

Referring to the demographic changes in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, he observed that the Great Andamanese had become integrated with the mainstream population, and noted that a similar question arose regarding the Shompen tribe.

"Do they become integrated completely with the mainstream, or do we keep them with their unique identity and the identity of their culture?" Justice Bagchi asked. He added: "Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental right."

The Attorney General responded that the Union was not referring to vulnerable tribes in the context of the submissions and was instead speaking about people who had become integrated with the mainstream.

The CJI said that the Supreme Court would request the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to take up the matter at the earliest.

The Court was subsequently informed that there were other proceedings before the High Court concerning the same issue.

In its order, the Supreme Court noted that the lead case before the High Court has been fixed for hearing on November 25-26.

"That being so, let the High Court take necessary steps to complete pleadings in the other matters and make endeavour to hear [them] on the date fixed," the Court ordered.

The Supreme Court also recorded that both sides had assured the Court of their full cooperation in the proceedings.

To recap, on May 6, the High Court upheld maintainability of PILs before it alleging violations in obtaining of consent for the project. By way of these PILs, the petitioner (a retired IAS officer) had challenged 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 had raised an objection to the PILs on the ground that the petitioner lacked locus standi, as she was a resident of Hyderabad and not the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

However, a Division Bench of the High Court observed that there could 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, 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 Union argued that the petitioner, being a permanent resident of Hyderabad, had no direct cause of action in the Islands and that the project involved infrastructure of “great national importance,” including port, airport, power station and defense facilities, with an estimated cost of ₹72,000 crores. It also contended that the tribal communities for whose benefit the PILs were filed were not parties before the Court and that 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 finalization 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).” It 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 emphasized that PILs were meant to secure justice for disadvantaged communities unable to access courts themselves. “The tribal population in Andaman and Nicobar Islands is a very vulnerable tribal groups and they are ordinarily not accessible to common men", it observed.

Rejecting the Government's reliance on an earlier Calcutta High Court order 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 petitioner here (the retired IAS officer) 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.

“A project involving huge expenditure must proceed in accordance with governing laws holding the field and it is not beyond the scope of judicial review on permissible parameters,” the Bench said.

Aggrieved, the Union approached the Supreme Court.

Case : Union of India v Meena Gupta | Diary No. 44246-2026