Great Nicobar Project: Three Gram Sabha Resolutions Challenged...

CURRENT AFFAIRS | 11 MAY 2026

CLAT GK + ENVIRONMENTAL & TRIBAL LAW

Three Gram Sabha resolutions cited by the Andaman & Nicobar Administration as proof of tribal consent for diverting 166.10 sq km of pristine forest under the Rs 81,000-crore Great Nicobar Project — comprising a transshipment port at Galathea Bay, a greenfield airport, a township, a gas-based power plant and military-use facilities — are under sustained scrutiny at the Calcutta High Court’s Port Blair Bench. According to a public-interest petition filed by former Environment and Tribal Affairs Secretary Meena Gupta, the three resolutions carried identical wording, common signatures, and at least 60 names appearing in two of three resolutions. Press reports also flag that quorum at these Gram Sabha meetings was as low as 2-15% of village population — far below the 50% threshold prescribed under the Forest Rights Act (FRA) Rules. The petitioner adds that the Shompen and Nicobarese — the two tribal groups on Great Nicobar — are constitutionally represented through Tribal Councils, not the Gram Sabha system, raising a structural challenge to the entire consent process.

The case sits at the constitutional intersection of FRA 2006, the Forest Conservation Act 1980 (renamed Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam by the 2023 amendment), the EIA Notification 2006, and the Niyamgiri doctrine on Gram Sabha consent. The Shompen — numbering around 300, mostly uncontacted — are designated a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG); diversion of their habitat triggers protections under Articles 244, 244A, 275 and 338A.

Want structured CLAT preparation? Try our free 5-day Bodh Demo Course with live classes and expert guidance. Start Free →

Constitutional / Legal Framework

FRA 2006: §3(1) recognises individual + community + community forest resource (CFR) rights of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (OTFDs); §4 vests the rights; §6 makes the Gram Sabha the authority to initiate determination of rights — its consent is mandatory.

FCA 1980 (now Van Adhiniyam 2023): §2 requires prior approval of the Central Government before any forest land can be diverted for non-forest purposes.

Doctrinal precedent: Orissa Mining Corporation v Ministry of Environment & Forests (2013) — the Niyamgiri case — held that Gram Sabhas must independently determine community religious and cultural rights of forest-dwelling tribes before forest diversion is approved.

Constitutional anchors: Article 244 (administration of Scheduled Areas — V & VI Schedules); Article 244A (autonomous state in Assam); Article 275 (grants to states for tribal welfare); Article 338A (NCST — National Commission for Scheduled Tribes); A&N Islands fall under Schedule V (NOT VI).

Why This Matters for CLAT 2027

Environmental and tribal-rights jurisprudence is a high-yield CLAT zone — Niyamgiri, Vellore Citizens, Godavarman and Samatha have all been examined repeatedly. The Great Nicobar litigation is the freshest live test of the Niyamgiri Gram Sabha consent doctrine since 2013, and the first to involve a PVTG with cultural-religious links to a contiguous tropical forest landscape. Aspirants should be ready to spot a Legal Reasoning passage that asks whether identical-wording Gram Sabha resolutions satisfy the FRA §6 “free and informed consent” standard, and a GK question on the Schedule V vs Schedule VI distinction — A&N is V, NOT VI.

Key Facts at a Glance

Aspect	Detail
Project cost	Rs 81,000 crore (transshipment port + airport + township + power)
Forest diversion	166.10 sq km of tropical evergreen forest
Tribal groups	Shompen (PVTG, ~300 persons, mostly uncontacted) + Nicobarese
Petitioner	Meena Gupta (former Environment & Tribal Affairs Secretary)
Forum	Calcutta HC, Port Blair Bench (Justice Sujoy Paul)
Schedule	A&N Islands fall under Schedule V (NOT VI)

Mnemonic

FRA-3 rights = Individual + Community + Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights

FRA §3 recognises three layers: (1) individual ownership of homestead / cultivable land within forest; (2) community use rights (grazing, NTFP collection); (3) Community Forest Resource (CFR) rights — collective management of customary forest landscapes. The Niyamgiri Gram Sabha consent doctrine specifically protects layer (3).