Great Nicobar project: Supreme Court refuses Centre's plea against Calcutta HC PIL order

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to entertain the Centres plea against the Calcutta High Court order upholding the maintainability of PILs alleging violations of the Forest Rights Act in obtaining consent for the Great Nicobar Island megainfrastructure projectA bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana dismissed the Centres plea while noting that the matter is already pending before the high court and is scheduled to come up for hearing on November 25 and 26It asked the high court to hear the matter including all pending petitions on the date fixedAt the outset Attorney General R Venkataramani submitted that the issue was of great national importance and questioned the maintainability of the PIL on the issueHe submitted that the environmental clearance for the project had already been challenged before the National Green Tribunal NGT and expressed concern over multiple proceedings being initiated subsequentlySomebody comes and files a petition years later and then three different petitions try to challenge it in three different ways Then they say the tribal are affected and they are not before the court Now they have got those tribal groups impleaded Venkataramani submittedHe contended that the question of maintainability went to the root of the matter and requested the court to allow the Centre to make further submissions on the issueI just want to keep the door open nothing else Allow us to at least say something he saidAdditional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati also appearing in the matter said that the proceedings before the NGT concerning the environmental clearance have seen two roundsSenior advocate S Muralidhar appearing for a tribal council which was impleaded in the matter submitted that this issue concerns Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups PVTG and hence a Public Interest Litigation is maintainableJustice Bagchi told the attorney general that since there was already a decision on maintainability the questions concerning the public interest involved and the scope of the petition could be kept openMuralidhar however submitted that the question of how far the public interest survived might itself become academic since the Tribal Council had filed an application for impleadmentJustice Bagchi said that the broader question concerns the constitutional protection of the identity and culture of indigenous communitiesReferring to the demographic changes in the Andaman amp Nicobar Islands he observed that the Great Andamanese had become integrated with the mainstream populationDo they become integrated completely with the mainstream or do we keep them with their unique identity and the identity of their culture Justice Bagchi asked adding Preservation of culture is a constitutionally protected fundamental rightVenkataramani replied that the Centre was not referring to vulnerable tribes in the context of the submissions and was instead speaking about people who had become integrated with the mainstreamThe CJI said that the top court would request the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court to take up the matter at the earliestBhati said the court was subsequently informed that there were other proceedings before the high court concerning the same issueThe bench ordered that the main case before the high court has been fixed for hearing on November 2526Let the high court take necessary steps to complete pleadings in the other matters and make an endeavour to hear all the matters on the date fixed the bench said adding that both sides had assured the court their full cooperation in the proceedingsOn May 6 the high court upheld the maintainability of PILs before it alleging violations in obtaining consent for the projectThe PILs before the high court challenged various governmental actions linked to the Great Nicobar development project including alleged violations of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers Recognition of Forest Rights Act 2006 and reduction of ecosensitive buffer zones around national parksThe Centre had raised a preliminary objection of maintainability of the PIL on the ground that the petitioner former bureaucrat Meena Gupta lacked locus standi as she was a resident of Hyderabad and not the Andaman amp Nicobar IslandsHowever the high court observed that there could be no thumb rule regarding locus standi in PILs and that courts must permit genuine public causes concerning vulnerable communities to be raised even by persons not directly affectedIt held that merely because a project involves enormous expenditure or national importance it does not become immune from judicial reviewAggrieved by the order the Centre approached the top courtThis story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed agencies Midday accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability trustworthiness reliability and data of the text Midday managementmiddaycom reserves the sole right to alter delete or remove without notice the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever