Tribal leaders seek to be party to forest-rights case; Centre and Nicobar authorities say ‘too late’

Being made a party means the tribal council would formally join the ongoing High Court case. It could place its own facts, objections, and legal arguments before the bench. This matters because the case concerns land and rights affecting the Nicobarese community directly.

The council says the community never consented to diverting the forest. It also says no gram sabha of the tribals was held under the Forest Rights Act. The chairperson, two village captains, and one community member therefore seek participation in the litigation, rather than leaving the dispute to existing petitioners and government respondents.

The Centre and the island administration oppose the request. They say it was filed too late and would broaden the PIL. If admitted, the council could challenge the Record of Forest Rights more directly, although the Centre says its submissions should be limited to issues already before the court.

The project is a large planned development on Great Nicobar Island. It combines infrastructure, industry, urban growth, and military and civilian facilities. The dispute matters because building these facilities requires diversion of forest land, while the Forest Rights Act process is supposed to address affected communities’ rights.

The planned components include an integrated township, a transshipment container port at Galathea Bay, a solar and gas-based power plant, and a greenfield airport. A draft master plan also describes tourism as the island’s backbone. It proposes a greenfield coastal city, a service industry, and a port-linked finance hub.

The project is valued at Rs 81,000 crore. The High Court is examining petitions challenging the forest-rights proceedings connected with it. The Nicobarese applicants say they never consented to the diversion and still want to return to ancestral land on the southeastern and western coast.

The project’s stated financial scale is Rs 81,000 crore. Its land impact is also substantial: the Forest Rights Act proceedings concern diversion of 166 sq km of forest land for the Great Nicobar mega project. These figures explain why the dispute has drawn a public interest challenge and tribal opposition.

The planned development is not a single facility. It includes an integrated township, the Galathea Bay transshipment container port, a solar and gas-based power plant, and a greenfield airport for military and civilian use. The draft master plan adds a coastal city, tourism, service industries, and a port-linked finance hub.

The court is currently considering whether the procedures supporting that diversion were valid. The challenge focuses on gram sabha proceedings, the composition and actions of the sub-divisional level committee, and the Record of Forest Rights certificate issued for the land diversion.

The Forest Rights Act, or FRA, is the law governing recognition and settlement of eligible forest rights. It matters here because forest diversion cannot be separated from questions about the rights and participation of communities connected to the land. The article identifies the FRA process as the legal route used before issuing the diversion-related certificate.

Under the process described, the Gram Sabha forwards claims of forest rights. The sub-divisional level committee then verifies and examines those claims and prepares a draft Record of Forest Rights. That draft goes to the district level committee. The case challenges how three gram sabhas were convened and how their resolutions were reviewed.

The central dispute is whether the gram sabhas represented the Nicobarese community and genuinely consented. The petitioners say the certificate treated meetings of a settled community as consent, although no Nicobarese person attended. The government disputes the council’s intervention, but the court is examining the underlying proceedings.

The tribal council and petitioners question whether the FRA process actually represented the Nicobarese community. They say the community never consented to diverting its ancestral forest land, and that no gram sabha of the tribals was conducted under the Act. This matters because the Record of Forest Rights certificate states that the rights settlement was complete.

The certificate, issued on August 18, 2022, allegedly described meetings of gram sabhas of a settled community as consent, although no Nicobarese person attended. The petition also challenges the SDLC’s endorsement of a resolution carrying chairperson Barnabas Manju’s no-objection signature. It says he did not know he was an SDLC member or understand the meeting’s purpose.

The plea adds that Manju lacked enough information to decide for the community and was not authorized to consent alone. After signing, he wrote on November 22, 2022, withdrawing the NOC. The administration calls that revocation procedurally untenable.

The Centre and the island administration are not primarily arguing that the council’s concerns are irrelevant. Their stated objection is procedural and case-management based. They say the impleadment request came at a belated stage, when the High Court is already hearing the public interest litigation and the challenged certificate is nearly four years old.

The Centre says the issues raised by the tribal council are already part of the pending PIL. It argues that making the applicants parties, and allowing them to file pleadings, would irretrievably complicate the proceedings. The administration also invokes the principle of “approbate and reprobate” against the chairperson’s later withdrawal of consent.

The government’s requested compromise is narrower participation, if the court permits any hearing at all. It says the applicants should be limited to submissions on issues already raised and should not be made parties or allowed to file pleadings. The High Court will decide whether to accept that position.

If the court finds that the required FRA steps were not properly followed, the existing forest-diversion process could be set aside, reconsidered, or delayed. The article does not specify the exact remedy. However, the project’s current basis would be weakened because the RoFR certificate says the forest-rights settlement was complete.

The immediate issue would be whether valid gram sabha participation and community consent were established. A ruling against the process could require authorities to examine the Nicobarese community’s claims properly. It could also affect the SDLC’s endorsement and the certificate used for diverting 166 sq km of forest land.

For the project, that could mean delay or a need for fresh proceedings before construction moves ahead. For the community, it could create a formal opportunity to pursue recognition of its rights and its stated wish to return to ancestral land. For the forest, the disputed diversion could not safely rely on the challenged process alone.