Calcutta High Court to Hear Case on Forest Rights Violations Linked to Great Nicobar Project
Forest Rights and the Great Nicobar Mega-Project: The case before the Calcutta High Court
Image: The Indian Express
The Calcutta High Court will review a public interest litigation challenging the legality of tribal consent obtained for the Great Nicobar Island infrastructure project. Former government secretary Meena Gupta alleges violations of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, claiming that the consent process did not adhere to legal norms and that no forest rights claims were settled prior to land diversion.
- 01The Great Nicobar Island project, costing ₹81,000 crore (approximately $9.8 billion USD), includes plans for a township, a port, and a dual-use airport.
- 02The petition argues that the constitution of the sub-divisional level committee (SDLC) violated the Forest Rights Act, as it lacked sufficient Scheduled Tribe representation.
- 03Consent for land diversion was allegedly obtained from non-tribal settler panchayats, which the petition claims have no legal standing under the Forest Rights Act.
- 04The plea emphasizes that the Shompen tribe, a vulnerable group, will face significant harm from the project, including loss of habitat and resources critical for their survival.
- 05Gupta's prior representation to the President of India regarding these issues received no response, prompting the current legal action.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
The Calcutta High Court's Port Blair circuit bench is set to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Meena Gupta, a former union government secretary, regarding alleged violations of the Forest Rights Act, 2006, in the context of the Great Nicobar Island (GNI) mega-project. This ₹81,000 crore (approximately $9.8 billion USD) initiative aims to develop an integrated township, a transshipment port, a solar power plant, and a dual-use airport. Gupta's PIL challenges the legality of the consent process for land diversion, asserting that no forest rights claims have been settled as required by law. She contends that the sub-divisional level committee (SDLC) responsible for reviewing consent lacked adequate representation of Scheduled Tribes, with only one tribal member present. Furthermore, the resolutions purportedly granting consent were made by settler panchayats, which are not legally recognized as representatives of the affected tribal communities. The plea also highlights the potential devastation to the Shompen tribe, whose traditional lands and resources are at risk of being destroyed, violating their rights to food, water, and shelter. The court's decision could have significant implications for the project and the rights of indigenous communities in the region.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
The court's ruling could affect the Great Nicobar Island project and the rights of local tribal communities, particularly the Shompen tribe, whose habitat and resources are at risk.
Advertisement
In-Article Ad
Reader Poll
Should tribal consent be mandatory for projects affecting indigenous lands?
Connecting to poll...
Read the original article
Visit the source for the complete story.