Who May Question Great Nicobar? The Centre's Supreme Court Appeal Targets the Petitioner's Standing, Not the Tribal-Rights Violations She Alleges

The Centre Is Contesting Who May Ask, Not Whether the Answer Is True Start with

what the law promises.

The commitment: Under the Forest Rights Act, 2006, forest land that tribal communities depend on can be diverted to a project only after two steps:

1. Their rights over that land are identified and settled.
2. Their Gram Sabha (village assembly) gives its consent.

The record in this case: The Andaman and Nicobar administration has issued a certificate stating that all FRA rights on Great Nicobar have been settled. The Gram Sabhas passed resolutions consenting to the forest diversion.

Retired IAS officer Meena Gupta has challenged both in the Calcutta High Court. She has also challenged the notifications that shrank the buffer zones around Campbell Bay and Galathea Bay National Parks. The Centre's response is revealing because of what it leaves out.

It has not argued before the Supreme Court that the certificate is accurate or that the consent was freely given. It has argued that Ms. Gupta has no locus standi, that the petitions are an abuse of process and that private claims should not hold up national growth.

Where the

accountability chain breaks Every environmental safeguard depends on someone checking that it was followed. On Great Nicobar, the chain looks like this:

• Who certifies compliance: The Andaman and Nicobar administration, which is also the government side promoting the project.
• Who could normally challenge it: The affected communities. But the Shompen are a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group with very little contact with the outside world. They cannot hire lawyers, file writ petitions or follow a hearing in Port Blair.
• Who is left: Only an outside petitioner acting for them. If the court accepts that she has no standing, the certificate is never tested by anyone except the authority that issued it. That is the specific weak link here: the check on whether rights were really settled, not the rules themselves.

Why the High

Court's reasoning holds The High Court found that Ms. Gupta had "sufficient interest" and was speaking for a vulnerable tribal community. It also noted her role in drafting the FRA. On cost, it refused to judge the project's importance.

It held only that a project costing this much must still follow the law and remains open to judicial review. This fits long-standing Indian law. Since S.P. Gupta v. Union of India (1981), the Supreme Court has allowed public-spirited citizens to litigate for people who cannot approach courts themselves.

The fair case for the Centre The Centre's position is not baseless.

Great Nicobar lies close to one of the world's busiest shipping routes and a transshipment port there has real strategic value. Long litigation can stall projects of national importance and rules on standing do exist to filter out frivolous cases.

But the answer to a weak case is to decide it on its merits, which the High Court is ready to do on November 25 and 26. Notably, the Centre agreed to those hearing dates in the High Court while asking the Supreme Court to stop the same hearing.

Why this matters for the exam In environment-and-development questions, the strongest answers go beyond "balancing development and ecology".

They ask who checks whether the safeguards were followed. On Great Nicobar, that check now depends on whether the Supreme Court allows an outsider to speak for the Shompen.