Case at a glance: This is a hearing and procedural order, not a final judgment on the project. The Supreme Court refused to entertain the Centre's plea against the Calcutta High Court's finding that the PILs on the Great Nicobar project are maintainable, and noted that the matter was already pending before the High Court. The High Court's next hearing is reported for 25–26 November 2026. The Supreme Court did not decide the merits.
The Great Nicobar Island project is a development of about Rs 81,000 crore with a transhipment port at Galathea Bay, reportedly requiring diversion of about 130.75 sq km of forest. PILs in the Calcutta High Court allege violations of the Forest Rights Act, specifically that village-council consent was not properly obtained before approvals, and critics cite ecological damage including coral colonies and risks to the Shompen, a Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group.
The Centre went to the Supreme Court around 30 September seeking to stop the High Court proceedings. On 5 October the bench refused to entertain the plea. Attorney General R. Venkataramani described the matter as of great national importance and raised concerns about multiple proceedings, including before the National Green Tribunal, and reportedly questioned the petitioner's standing.
The Key Question Before the Court
Should the Supreme Court interfere with the Calcutta High Court's decision that PILs challenging the Great Nicobar project are maintainable?
Why the Court Left the Merits to the High Court
As reported, the Court declined to examine the maintainability objection, noted that the matter was already pending before the High Court, and asked or directed the High Court to hear the matter including all pending petitions on the dates fixed. Reports differ on whether the High Court was merely requested or specifically directed to proceed expeditiously.
Justice Bagchi is reported to have said the issue involves the constitutional protection of the identity and culture of indigenous communities. Senior Advocate Muralidhar, appearing for the tribal council, argued that protections for Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups made a PIL appropriate. The Supreme Court has not ruled on whether consent was valid or on the project's legality.
What the Court Actually Did
- It refused to entertain the Centre's challenge to the Calcutta High Court's maintainability finding.
- It noted that the matter was already pending before the High Court and left the merits to that Court.
- It did not decide the Forest Rights Act or tribal-consent challenge, or the legality of the project.
- The Calcutta High Court is next scheduled to hear the matter on 25–26 November 2026.
Why This Matters
- The Centre's attempt to halt the High Court proceedings has failed, so the challenge goes ahead on its merits.
- It shows the Court treating protection of indigenous culture as a constitutional-rights question.
- It raises the stakes for the Forest Rights Act consent issue in the High Court hearing.
- It is an interim step: the substantive challenge, and any further appeal, are still to come.
What Should Advocates Take Away?
For Environmental and Tribal-Rights Counsel
- Focus on the Forest Rights Act consent record when preparing for the Calcutta High Court hearing.
- Track the National Green Tribunal proceedings, which the Centre cited as overlapping.
For Government and Project Counsel
- Expect the High Court to examine the consent process; an attack on maintainability at the Supreme Court has not succeeded at this stage.
Key Takeaways
- On 5 October 2026 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the Centre's plea on PIL maintainability.
- The merits stay with the Calcutta High Court, with hearings reported for 25–26 November.
- No ruling was made on the project's legality or on tribal consent.
- This is an interim hearing and order, not a final judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Neither. It declined to entertain the Centre's challenge to the maintainability finding and left the merits to the Calcutta High Court.
The Calcutta High Court's next hearing is reported as 25–26 November 2026; no next Supreme Court date was found.
Allegations that the Forest Rights Act's village-council consent requirement was not properly followed, alongside ecological and tribal-protection concerns.
Conclusion
The order keeps the Great Nicobar controversy in the Calcutta High Court, where the consent and ecology questions will now be argued on the merits.
Practical takeaway: Treat this as a procedural setback for the Centre, not a decision on the project; the substantive Forest Rights Act and environmental issues are still undecided.