The Calcutta High Court has held that public interest litigations challenging alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act in connection with the Great Nicobar infrastructure project are maintainable, rejecting the Union Government’s preliminary objection regarding the petitioner’s locus standi.
The Division Bench of Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen observed that public interest jurisdiction could not be restricted by rigid technical rules when the issues concerned vulnerable tribal communities and alleged violations of statutory protections under environmental and tribal welfare legislation.
The Court was hearing three connected PILs filed by retired IAS officer Meena Gupta challenging various governmental actions relating to the Great Nicobar mega-infrastructure project, including alleged violations of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, as well as reduction of eco-sensitive buffer zones surrounding protected forest areas and national parks in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The Counsel for the Centre opposed the maintainability of the petitions on the ground that the petitioner was a resident of Hyderabad and had no direct personal cause of action in the Islands. He argued that the project involved infrastructure of strategic national importance, including the development of a trans-shipment port, an airport, power infrastructure, and defence-related facilities, with an estimated investment of approximately Rs 72,000 crore.
The Counsel further contended that the tribal communities concerned were not themselves parties before the Court and that sovereign policy decisions concerning strategic infrastructure deserved judicial deference.
Rejecting the objection, the High Court held that there could be no inflexible rule governing locus standi in public interest litigation, particularly where affected communities were socially and economically vulnerable and may not be in a position to independently access constitutional remedies.
The Bench referred to Rule 56 governing PIL jurisdiction and observed that where disadvantaged groups are unable to approach courts because of poverty, helplessness, geographical isolation or social vulnerability, any bona fide public-spirited individual may invoke the Court’s writ jurisdiction on their behalf.
While examining the petitioner’s credentials, the Court took note of her long association with tribal welfare administration and policy-making. The Bench recorded that Meena Gupta had previously served as Secretary in the Ministry of Tribal Affairs and had participated in the formulation of the Forest Rights legislation. The Court also noted her involvement in policy discussions concerning Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) and her familiarity with issues affecting indigenous communities in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The High Court observed that the tribal communities inhabiting the Islands constitute highly vulnerable groups with limited access to institutional and legal mechanisms. The Bench emphasised that PIL jurisprudence evolved precisely to enable judicial protection of such marginalised communities through representative litigation.
Referring to several Supreme Court precedents governing public interest litigation, including People’s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India and State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal, the Court reiterated that procedural technicalities cannot defeat genuine constitutional challenges concerning environmental governance, tribal rights and statutory compliance.
The Bench further clarified that merely because a project involved substantial public expenditure or national importance, it did not become immune from judicial review. The Court observed that infrastructure and development projects must conform to existing statutory frameworks, including environmental and forest rights legislation, and remain subject to constitutional scrutiny on permissible legal grounds.
In the connected matters challenging the reduction of eco-sensitive buffer zones around Galathea National Park and Campbell Bay National Park, the Union Government also raised objections based on principles analogous to res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court rejected those objections as well, holding that the petitions arose from distinct governmental notifications and separate causes of action. The Bench listed the matter for final hearing on June 23, 2026.
The post Calcutta High Court allows pleas alleging Forest Rights Act violations in Great Nicobar project appeared first on India Legal.