The Great Nicobar project, a Rs 72,000-crore initiative involving a transhipment port, airport, power plant, and township, has sparked controversy over tribal rights and environmental concerns. Despite claims by the Island’s administration that the Scheduled Tribes’ rights were resolved under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) to permit forest land diversion, tribal councils contest these claims. The project’s legality and environmental sustainability remain under scrutiny amid allegations of procedural lapses and lack of genuine consent from indigenous communities.
Legal Framework and Forest Rights Act
The Forest Rights Act, 2006, mandates Gram Sabha consent before forest land diversion. The Supreme Court’s 2013 Orissa Mining case affirmed this consent as mandatory. FRA overrides conflicting laws, ensuring tribal communities’ rights are protected. The Great Nicobar project’s administration certified rights without genuine Gram Sabha approval, violating FRA provisions. The project’s reliance on alternate statutes like PAT56 to bypass FRA is legally unsound. The lack of consultation with the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes further undermines the project’s legality.
Tribal Consent and Administrative Issues
Tribal councils of Little and Great Nicobar allege their rights were ignored and Gram Sabha meetings manipulated. The Nicobarese Tribal Council withdrew its no-objection certificate citing lack of genuine consent. Union Ministry initially denied awareness of objections but now reviews the process. Reports from the National Green Tribunal and National Commission for Scheduled Tribes show procedural failures. These administrative shortcomings question the legitimacy of the project’s approval and consent mechanisms.
Environmental Impact and Ecological Concerns
The project threatens nearly 13,000 hectares of forest, about 18% of Great Nicobar’s area. Official data estimates 8.5 lakh trees will be cut; independent studies suggest up to 58 lakh. Endangered species like the leatherback turtle, Nicobarese megapode, and robber crab face habitat loss. Thousands of coral colonies marked for translocation risk survival. Denotification of protected areas and realignment of park borders exacerbate ecological damage. Compensatory afforestation far from the island offers no real ecological substitute.
Population Expansion and Fiscal Viability
The project plans to increase the island’s population from 8,000 to 3.5 lakh, a move exceeding the public interest clause under PAT56. This expansion indicates a commercial character rather than a narrow public purpose. The island’s location in the seismically unstable Pacific Ring of Fire raises concerns over the project’s long-term viability and fiscal prudence. These factors add to doubts about the project’s sustainability and risk to local communities.
Implications for Tribal Rights and Environmental Governance
The Great Nicobar controversy marks the risk of statutory protections becoming mere formalities. Genuine Gram Sabha consent is central to tribal rights under the FRA. Administrative shortcuts and lack of transparent consultation weaken these safeguards. The project exposes tensions between development ambitions and constitutional rights of indigenous peoples. It raises important questions about environmental governance and respect for vulnerable communities in India.
Questions for UPSC:
- Point out the significance of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, in protecting tribal land rights and analyse its impact on forest governance in India.
- Critically analyse the role of Gram Sabha in forest land diversion under Indian law and assess challenges in its effective implementation.
- Estimate the environmental and socio-economic impacts of large infrastructure projects on indigenous communities with suitable examples from India.
- Underline the constitutional and legal safeguards for Scheduled Tribes in India and discuss the challenges in balancing development and tribal rights.
