Great Nicobar Project and Rights of Nature Debate

The Great Nicobar Island is at the centre of a major environmental and developmental debate in 2025. The Government of India has proposed a multi-crore project involving a power plant, township, port, and airport. This plan threatens 13,000 hectares of pristine forest and the unique ecology of the island. Concerns have risen over the project’s impact on tribal rights, biodiversity, and seismic risks. This situation marks the growing global discourse on recognising legal rights for natural entities to protect fragile ecosystems.

Ecological Significance of Great Nicobar Island

The Andaman and Nicobar Islands are among the world’s top biodiversity hotspots. They act as vital carbon sinks and climate regulators. Their unique island ecology depends on delicate forest and marine ecosystems. Development plans that ignore these ecological sensitivities risk irreversible damage. The Great Nicobar Island’s forests are home to indigenous tribes and rare species. Preserving this environment is crucial for global biodiversity and climate stability.

Tribal Rights and Legal Precedents

The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, protects tribal communities’ rights over forests. The 2013 Supreme Court judgment in the Niyamgiri Hills case upheld tribal gram sabhas’ authority to reject projects threatening their land and culture. This precedent is relevant to Great Nicobar, where the Tribal Council claims their forest rights were not settled before land diversion. Ensuring tribal consent and forest rights settlement is legally and ethically essential.

Environmental Impact and Seismic Concerns

The environmental impact assessment for the Great Nicobar project reportedly downplays earthquake risks. The region is seismically active, raising questions about the safety and sustainability of large infrastructure. Ignoring such risks can lead to disasters affecting both humans and nature. Comprehensive and transparent impact studies are necessary for informed decision-making.

Rights of Nature – A New Legal Paradigm

Several countries have adopted ‘rights of nature’ laws recognising ecosystems as legal persons. This approach aims to protect nature directly rather than only human interests. Christopher Stone’s 1972 article argued for legal standing for natural objects to improve environmental protection. India’s 2017 Uttarakhand High Court ruling granted legal personhood to rivers and glaciers, appointing guardians to represent them. Though stayed by the Supreme Court, this judgment inspired new legal thinking on nature’s rights.

Challenges and Global Examples

Granting legal personhood to natural entities raises complex questions. These include defining nature’s rights, appointing guardians, and assigning responsibilities. Colombia’s 2016 Atrato River case recognised bio-cultural rights, linking indigenous stewardship with ecosystem protection. Such models suggest inclusive governance involving indigenous communities. Adopting these ideas in India requires careful legal and normative clarity.

Implications for Great Nicobar and Future Policy

The Great Nicobar project tests India’s ability to balance development with ecology and tribal rights. Incorporating rights of nature could strengthen environmental governance. It demands transparent processes, respect for tribal consent, and recognition of natural entities as stakeholders. This approach may prevent conflicts and ecological degradation in fragile regions.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Critically analyse the role of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in protecting indigenous communities in India with suitable examples.
2. Explain the concept of ‘rights of nature’ and discuss its potential impact on environmental governance in India.
3. What are the challenges in implementing large infrastructure projects in ecologically sensitive zones? How can sustainable development be ensured in such areas?
4. Critically examine the significance of judicial interventions in environmental protection in India, citing landmark cases such as the Niyamgiri Hills and Uttarakhand High Court rulings.

Answer Hints:

1. Critically analyse the role of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, in protecting indigenous communities in India with suitable examples.

1. Recognises and vests forest rights and occupation in forest-dwelling Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers.
2. Empowers gram sabhas to manage, protect, and conserve forest resources, enhancing community participation.
3. Example – Niyamgiri Hills case (2013) where gram sabhas rejected mining, safeguarding tribal culture and environment.
4. Addresses historical injustice by acknowledging customary rights over forests previously denied.
5. Challenges include delays in rights recognition, administrative hurdles, and conflicts with development projects.
6. Ensures tribal consent before diversion of forest land for projects, promoting ethical and legal safeguards.

2. Explain the concept of ‘rights of nature’ and discuss its potential impact on environmental governance in India.

1. ‘Rights of nature’ grants legal personhood to natural entities (rivers, forests, ecosystems), enabling them to hold rights and seek legal redress.
2. Shifts focus from human-centric environmental protection to direct protection of nature itself.
3. Inspired by Christopher Stone’s 1972 article advocating legal standing for natural objects.
4. India’s Uttarakhand High Court (2017) granted legal personhood to rivers and glaciers, appointing guardians to represent them.
5. Potential to strengthen environmental governance by enabling guardianship, proactive restoration, and legal accountability for ecological harm.
6. Challenges include defining specific rights, appointing responsible guardians, and integrating with existing legal frameworks.

3. What are the challenges in implementing large infrastructure projects in ecologically sensitive zones? How can sustainable development be ensured in such areas?

1. Ecological sensitivity demands preservation of biodiversity, carbon sinks, and fragile ecosystems that large projects often threaten.
2. Seismic and environmental risks, such as earthquake proneness, may be downplayed, risking disasters.
3. Conflict with indigenous communities arises due to inadequate settlement of forest rights and lack of consent.
4. Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) may be insufficient, biased, or lack transparency.
5. Sustainable development requires comprehensive EIAs, participatory decision-making including tribal consent, and adherence to forest and environmental laws.
6. Adoption of rights of nature and guardianship models can integrate ecological protection with development goals.

4. Critically examine the significance of judicial interventions in environmental protection in India, citing landmark cases such as the Niyamgiri Hills and Uttarakhand High Court rulings.

1. Judiciary has played a key role in upholding environmental and tribal rights, often stepping in when executive actions fail.
2. Niyamgiri Hills (2013) Supreme Court ruling empowered gram sabhas to reject mining projects threatening tribal culture and ecology.
3. Uttarakhand High Court (2017) granted legal personhood to rivers and glaciers, pioneering rights of nature jurisprudence in India.
4. Judicial interventions have enforced legal compliance, transparency, and tribal participation in environmental decisions.
5. However, such rulings may face challenges in implementation, as seen in the Supreme Court stay of Uttarakhand ruling.
6. Overall, judicial activism is crucial for balancing development with environmental sustainability and rights protection.